The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

5uspect

J C wrote:

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.

So your saying that ID is actually saying that it is trying to improve the existence of the biblical god? Thats something they're very shy about admitting. Also don't IDers accept an old earth? Doesn't this make any progress that ID makes at odds with creationism? Well it would but neither groups have made any progress apart than trying to bully some school kids into beliving their stories cos most adults won't.

wolfsbane wrote:

Have you forgotten the still significant longevity?

Have you forgotten my post about all those diseases that also had to survive the flood?

wolfsbane wrote:

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.

And why is this not an assumption?

wolfsbane wrote:

The estimate is about 16,000 animals.

...

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.

Realistic? no, you nor John Woodmorappe haven't explained how this number of animals works other than counting up the number of genera and making wild assumptions about animal sizes etc to that it all fits neatly. Any responses to reviews that I have seen are hostile and not forthcoming at attempting to elaborate on the problems pointed out. If this typical of the kind of response creationists give to reviews it is no wonder no one will even consider publishing their ideas.

J C

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

Mmmm, as most UFOlogists are Evolutionists I’m sure that they DO publish in peer-reviewed Evolutionist journals!!! :eek:


Scofflaw
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

I haven’t confused anything.
I am merely pointing out the fact that the (intelligent) DESIGN of the Avian Lung is so radically different from the lungs of all possible evolutionary ancestors of birds that the Avian Lung couldn’t possibly have evolved.

Equally, no intermediate lung structures have ever been observed in either fossil or living organisms – and it is actually impossible to even conceptualise what a FUNCTIONING lung structure between bi-directional and uni-directional airflow would even look like!!!

I’d say that this was pretty conclusive evidence that the Avian Lung was Intelligently Designed and didn’t evolve – wouldn’t you? :cool:


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

The enormous problem that Peacock feathers pose for Evolution made Darwin SICK every time he even thought about it!!!

DISCUSS !!!

“BIRD FEATHERS AND REPTILE SCALES
Another impassable gulf between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, and those of birds with feathers. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionary paleontologist Barbara Stahl admits:
How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition.

REPTILE SCALES
The scales that cover reptiles' bodies are totally different from bird feathers. Unlike feathers, scales do not extend under the skin, but are merely a hard layer on the surface of the animal's body. Genetically, biochemically and anatomically, scales bear no resemblance to feathers. This great difference between the two again shows that the scenario of evolution from reptiles to birds is unfounded.
The Sinosauropteryx fossil, announced by evolutionary paleontologists to be a "feathered dinosaur," subsequently turned out to be no such thing.
A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this reality, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]." Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates."
There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds. Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.
Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. The prominent ornithologist Alan Feduccia writes the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":
Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are.

THE DESIGN OF FEATHERS
On the other hand, there is such a complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be accounted for by evolutionary processes. As we all know, there is a shaft that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper.

THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF BIRD FEATHERS
When bird feathers are studied closely, a very delicate design emerges. There are even tinier hairs on every tiny hair, and these have special hooks, allowing them to hold onto each other. The pictures show progressively enlarged bird feathers.

Just one crane feather has about 650 barbs on each of side of the shaft. About 600 barbules branch off the barbs. Each one of these barbules are locked together with 390 hooklets. The hooks latch together as do the teeth on both sides of a zip. If the hooklets come apart for any reason, the bird can easily restore the feathers to their original form by either shaking itself or by straightening its feathers out with its beak.
To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some years ago:
It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.
The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"
In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the unbelievably complex design of feathers, clearly demonstrate the baselessness of the claim that feathers evolved from scales.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

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

Mmmm, as most UFOlogists are Evolutionists I’m sure that they DO publish in peer-reviewed Evolutionist journals!!!

Well, cheap shot for cheap shot! However, your definition of "Evolutionist" needs to be "everyone-but-Creationists" here.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
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

I haven’t confused anything.
I am merely pointing out the fact that the (intelligent) DESIGN of the Avian Lung is so radically different from the lungs of all possible evolutionary ancestors of birds that the Avian Lung couldn’t possibly have evolved.

Equally, no intermediate lung structures have ever been observed in either fossil or living organisms – and it is actually impossible to even conceptualise what a FUNCTIONING lung structure between bi-directional and uni-directional airflow would even look like!!!

I’d say that this was pretty conclusive evidence that the Avian Lung was Intelligently Designed and didn’t evolve – wouldn’t you?

Obviously I wouldn't!

It is not possible to observe lung structures in fossils, so it will be a little difficult to observe intermediate forms that way.

The phrase "couldn’t possibly have evolved" is entirely meaningless. If you can't think of a way, all that proves is that you can't think of a way.

J C wrote:

The enormous problem that Peacock feathers pose for Evolution made Darwin SICK every time he even thought about it!!!

DISCUSS !!!
The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). [/B]In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"

In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the unbelievably complex design of feathers, clearly demonstrate the baselessness of the claim that feathers evolved from scales.

JC, this suffers from exactly the same logical problem as your previous cut-and-paste. Again a strawman pathway is suggested, and knocked down, and that taken to disprove all possible pathways.

In addition, you are once again quoting material that is 150 years old. Why do you think this is relevant today? Darwin, contrary to your apparent belief, does not occupy the position with respect to evolution that Moses occupies with respect to the Bible - because evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion!

As usual, you haven't finished your quote - "Ernst Mayr: it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships (the famous Yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.". The quote is from 1942, from Mayr's first published book.

It is important to realise that many of the people you misquote (I can guess the source of your quotations) are scientists who argue against specific aspects of evolutionary theory - Mayr, for example, argued against genetic reductionism and for the idea that evolution works on the whole organism - hence the quote above. Note how these people, despite being (if evolution were a religious doctrine as you pretend) heretics and schismatics, are neither ostracised nor suppressed.

I weary of pointing out your logical fallacies - indeed, I begin to think that your thought processes consist of nothing but logical fallacies. In this one post you have variously "begged the question", set up a "strawman" hypothesis, attempted to "argue from authority", made several syllogistic errors and several category errors. You have, in addition, almost certainly cut and pasted this material without any comprehension whatsoever.

I deride your ability to think,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Mmm. And UFOlogists publish in their peer-reviewed journals.Originally Posted by J C
Mmmm, as most UFOlogists are Evolutionists I’m sure that they DO publish in peer-reviewed Evolutionist journals!!!

Scofflaw
Well, cheap shot for cheap shot! However, your definition of "Evolutionist" needs to be "everyone-but-Creationists" here.

I did say "most UFOlogists are Evolutionists" – Some Creationists have also had close encounters of the First, Second and Third Kinds!!!


Scofflaw
JC, this suffers from exactly the same logical problem as your previous cut-and-paste. Again a strawman pathway is suggested, and knocked down, and that taken to disprove all possible pathways.

But it DOESN’T suffer from any logical fallacies.
Evolutionists do indeed postulate that Birds evolved from reptiles.
However both the Avian Lung and Feather are structures with no intermediaries in either the fossil or living record.
Birds and (their lungs and feathers) appear suddenly and fully formed – and this is at the very least prima face evidence of Direct Creation. :cool:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
JC, this suffers from exactly the same logical problem as your previous cut-and-paste. Again a strawman pathway is suggested, and knocked down, and that taken to disprove all possible pathways.

But it DOESN’T suffer from any logical fallacies.
Evolutionists do indeed postulate that Birds evolved from reptiles.
However both the Avian Lung and Feather are structures with no intermediaries in either the fossil or living record.
Birds and (their lungs and feathers) appear suddenly and fully formed – and this is at the very least prima face evidence of Direct Creation. :cool:

No, no, no. Look, your logic there is execrable. What you have said is exactly the same as "John appeared at my house - therefore he was Created there, because I didn't see him coming from somewhere else"! Prima facie evidence of nothing but your own poor logic...do you assume people you have never met before are instantaneously created, simply because you didn't see them growing up?

It is difficult to directly follow the evolution of soft tissues in fossil forms, because soft tissues (organs) are only "fossilised" in extremely rare circumstances. However, your claim that there are no known transitional forms is, as usual, outdated.

correctively,
Scofflaw

pH

J C wrote:

Evolutionists do indeed postulate that Birds evolved from reptiles.
However both the Avian Lung and Feather are structures with no intermediaries in either the fossil or living record.

Maybe you didn't read the link last time, try again:
There is significant evidence that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.[1] As more non-avian theropods that are closely related to birds are discovered, the formerly clear distinction between non-birds and birds becomes less so. Recent discoveries in northeast China (Liaoning Province) demonstrating that many small theropod dinosaurs had feathers contribute to this ambiguity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds

No-one is claiming that birds evolved from reptiles. Both reptiles and birds obviously had a common ancestor at some point in the past, but birds did not evolve from reptiles, nor does any scientist claim they did.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

It took "so long" to get where we are now because moratlity rate was so high.

In the 18th century infant moratlity for most of the UK was 1 in 2. Imagine what it was like 20,000 years ago, with no farming or proper settlement.

You project back from an island economy that did not have unlimited opportunities for expansion, to one where the world was up for grabs. You also make assumptions about levels of hygiene back then.

Yes

I would like to see your proof of 20 million - do you have the skeletons, or census forms, or what?

That is the proper scientific estimate of the population of the world in 2000 BCE

Ah, - and that is based on?

Yes, except they had nothing to crop and pasture with.

No sheep, no cows, no camels, no rabbits, no chickens, no seeds, no plants, no...?

Yes. What you think people just make this stuff up. Civilisations such as China and Greece even keep primiative census information.

Please refer me to the Chinese and Greek census reports c.2000BC.

Infant mortality rates in undeveloped primitive cultures with no access to medicine or modern farming methods. A fact that YEC seem quite happy to completely ignore.

Undeveloped primitive cultures like those who built the pyramids, invented mathematics, writing, etc? I see.

If we lose genetic abilities rather than gain them how did the post-flood Africans and Asians adapt to there environment so well as they spreed out over the land. For that matter, how did the animals adapt to environment challanges if they could only lose genetic "ability"

Adaption is by selection of some genetic traits over others. The others are lost.

Yes

Again, please let me see the reports from 2000BC that indicate such a high mortality rate.

It is nonsense, yet it is what YEC claim happened. Post-flood settlers arrived in Austrialia and "specialised" to the enviroment changing into black native-Austrialias. The same in Africa and Asia. This process though, apparently doesn't happen anymore, since European settlers have been in Austrialia for approx 300 years and so far none of them have turned black.

Could it be because white is not the original skin type, in fact it is just as much an adaption as the black? The original gave us what we see today, in its various shades.

What does that even mean?

All of Noah's family would have been middle eastern. When their decendents moved to Asia and became "isolated", what genes took over?? How did they develop these traits such as black skin, or skull shape?

Everyone doesn't contain Asia genes that are just not working at the moment wolfbane. I don't have tons of Asian genes just lying in wait in my gnome until I become isolated and then they take over (when I'm in Asia I assume). These traits develop due to mutation of the genetic material.

No, today's middle eastern is just one of the types Noah's descendants developed into. As to adaption, my scientific knowledge is sparse, but as understand it, adaption brings loss of some previous genetic information, not cold storage of it. Maybe you can correct me - can a group of poodles be bred so as to return to their non-poodle ancestor type?

Reinforced by their isolation? What?

What would have been reinforced by their isolation? Are you saying that a slightly black post-flood settler could have gone back to babylon, had sex with a woman there and produced a child that would have "topped" up genetic material and would therefore be back to being white?

See One race http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter4.asp

Do you think that African and Asia traits are a sign of genetic degredation, of genetic loss, that Africans and Asias have lost genetic ability which turned them they way they are?

Yes, just like for the whites.

Actually we do know. Humanity started in Africa approx 250,000 years ago and we were all black. As settlers travelled north the skin evolved due to the different light conditions found in northern Europe. This took thousands of years.

Wow! You've found mummies from 250,000 years ago! You should have told someone. Or maybe you have census returns for the period? How exactly did you find out the location of the first humans and their skin colour?

How? If you reject the concept of evolution, how would they traits have "developed"?

Adaption. Just like in the animal kingdom, big dogs, small dogs, white dogs, brown dogs... Not of course cats into dogs - that would require evolution.

You think being black is a product of inbreeding?

Yes, just like being white is.

Evolution is adaption, and no it can not be relatively quick. Which is why, in 300 years no European settlers have so far turned black from living in Austrilia.

Adaption is an observed fact. Evolution is not. And it can be quick. Darwin's finches? White to black presumes white came first - but white and black are both the results of adaption on an original. By your understanding, give the black long enough in the shade and he will turn white, and vv. for the white. As this is not observed, it is only another tale from evolution's fairy story.

Both the Greeks and Egyptians, post-flood which YEC accept existed, record black slaves from southern african in approx 2000 BCE. "Specialised" post-flood people only 200 years after the flood?

Yes, I accept the possibility of relatively rapid change - but it is the 1000BC I wonder about. The Flood is dated c.2300BC.

That makes no sense at all. An "isolated" white person can lose the ability to develop white skin, but an isolated black person can lose the ability to develop white skin again?

Neither whites nor blacks can reverse their colour.

As after a while, after a number of "isolated" generations, a white family can lose their ability to produce white skin, turn black, and then lose their ability to produce black skin, and turn white

The mistake here is assuming the originals were white.

What you are actually describing is evolution. In evolution abilities are neither gained or lost, they are adapted. Due to mutation, that can lose, add or simply rearrange, genetic information, new traits develop in humans. This happens ALL THE TIME, each human on the planet has approx 60 mutations in their genome from the exact copy of their combined parental genome. If the trait is harmless or enhanced the life form the trait will spread, often combined with more mutations producing further traits. If these traits, once spread to a number of creatures in the species, improves the chances of the species surviving these traits will be, through natrual selection, adopted by hte successful memebers of the species.

There is no paradox of two people losing an ability ending up switched, because the mutation only helps if the environment dictates that it does.

So we all have the same or more information as the first humans? Given the right enviroment, my ancestors could be black Pigmys or 6 foot Chinese?

Skin colour is the result of evolution adapting us to certain environment. It is neither the result of new or lose of information, since the size of a black mans genome is the same as the size of a white mans genome. Increase of genetic information, or lost of gentic information, normally occurs when one species develops into another. In fact that is how one species develops into another, through signficiant mutations that alter the structure of the genome.

So we can all revert to our ancestoral type, given the right enviroment? And as new species come from changes within a species, humans today will eventually split into new species?

The black and white genome are both results of loss of information.

Son Goku

Okay, a stone cold sober scientific question. I'm going to try and turn this into a scientific analysis.

Choose one of A or B or C:

A.
What is wrong with mainstream science's current dating methods?

If it is certain assumptions, state what those assumptions are and how they specifically effect the measured dates?

B
Define what is meant by irreducible complexity.

C
What is the demarkation point between designed and not designed?
What properties does one look at to see if something is designed?

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Okay, a stone cold sober scientific question. I'm going to try and turn this into a scientific analysis.

Choose one of A or B or C:

A.
What is wrong with mainstream science's current dating methods?

If it is certain assumptions, state what those assumptions are and how they specifically effect the measured dates?

B
Define what is meant by irreducible complexity.

C
What is the demarkation point between designed and not designed?
What properties does one look at to see if something is designed?

Can I add:

D
Define what is meant by "genetic information".
Explain what constitutes an "increase in genetic information".

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Son Goku wrote:

BDefine what is meant by irreducible complexity.

This is the idea that certain biological systems (e.g the eye) are too complex to have have evolved naturally.

From Wikipedia:

An "irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality

This has provoked the question 'what is the use of half an eye' to which Richard Dawkins has answered 'well it's 50% better than no eye'. No doubt he was being a little flippant but the point is that an eye as it is now is not in itself the end point of some pre-guided process but is still evolving like everything else. And despite the claims of ID and Creation Scientists much is now understood about the evolution of the eye.

Current evidence indicates that eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. By developing a small depression for the photosensitive cells, the organisms obtained a better sense of the light's source, and by continuing to deepen the depression into a pit so that light would strike certain cells depending on its angle, increasingly precise visible information was possible. The aperture of the eye was then shrunk in order to focus the light, turning the eye into a pinhole camera and allowing the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, the protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.

In short I would suggest that there is no such thing as 'irreducible complexity'. Complexity not fully understood does not imply irreducabilty. It just means that some systems are at a level of complexity which makes an explanation of the underlying process difficult, but not impossible. To quote Dawkins again, 'we don't know yet but we're working on it'. Those of a creationist persuasion would prefer to just turn to the God solution, so much easier than trying to figure out a possible mechanism that would rule out the need for the big boss in the sky.

Son Goku

aidan24326 wrote:

This is the idea that certain biological systems (e.g the eye) are too complex to have have evolved naturally.

That isn't a scientific definition unfortuantly. It is a "this is the basic idea" definition, but not a workable scientific one.
For instance what is "too complex". What does one measure to find a complexity value and when does it become too much?

Giblet

How do we know how an eye started out? Maybe it was a collection source to different types of light for protein production which became central focus and nerves and muscles developed to control it and so on until that light was able to be divided in order to concentrate on certain wavelengths. I mean, this stuff could have happened eons ago, but how would that type of information survive? We couldn't do the biological tests needed to determine all the intermediatary functions of the eye. The argument is founded on facts which are spun to suit.

robindch

> What does one measure to find a complexity value and when does
> it become too much?

The creationist researcher doesn't have to measure anything, which is probably just as well, given how much research they're doing!

Effectively, it's a qualitative judgement: if the creationist can't work out how some biological component could function in a simpler form, then the component is said to be "irreducibly complex". Note that to make this judgement actually requires the creationist making the judgement to fail to solve a problem in biology. Something which is no doubt seen as faintly ironic by more competent researchers who do have to produce solutions to earn their daily bread.

The usual example of IR is Behe's bacterial flagellum which was shot to pieces by Kenneth Miller during the Dover ID case last year. Judge Jones made the following point:

In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur.

Acutally, Jones' judgement is worth reading for anybody interested in learning how ID works at the scientific level, as well as the far, far more important political level.

robindch

> how would that type of information survive?

...in plenty of simple life-forms. And the genetic material in these lifeforms is preserved in ourselves as well as other organisms.

aidan24326

Son Goku wrote:

That isn't a scientific definition unfortuantly. It is a "this is the basic idea" definition, but not a workable scientific one.
For instance what is "too complex". What does one measure to find a complexity value and when does it become too much?

It isn't my definition, just something I took from another source.

Personally I don't think the term 'irreducible complexity' has any real meaning. To describe any level of complexity as irreducible is just an admission that you don't understand it. As humans have done for thousands of years, that which is unexplainable becomes the work of God. That is until someone actually figures out the explanation, then it becomes science and God is out of a job again (I'm avoiding the bigger issue of whether a god-like entity may have set the whole thing in motion). That is possible, but unnecessary for this purpose.

Nor is it in any way meaningful to describe something as 'too complex', since this is simply a subjective human description. I don't think there is any level of complexity which we can describe as being too complex to have evolved by natural means, as we don't know the limits (if any) of what the natural selection process can produce. If certain issues are currently unresolved that doesn't mean a solution won't be found in due course.

I think creation scientists and ID proponents simply use 'irreducible complexity' as an excuse to play the God card. This is not real science in any way, as real science will always strive to find answers in this world without recourse to God and his design team in the sky. So I feel this is a pretty undefinable concept, and thus perfect for the creationists to latch onto by virtue of it's vagueness.

Son Goku

aidan24326 wrote:

It isn't my definition, just something I took from another source.

Oh I know. I'm just highlighting for any Creationist who might attempt to answer that it isn't good enough as definition.

J C

A.
What is wrong with mainstream science's current dating methods?

If it is certain assumptions, state what those assumptions are and how they specifically effect the measured dates?

Radiometric dating methods are based upon unproven ASSUMPTIONS about the radioactive content of the rock when it was formed, the belief that no radioactivity was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that rock has existed and the assumption that the rate of change in the radioactive decay has remained constant. These unproven ASSUMPTIONS prevent any reliable dating conclusions being drawn – and there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being dated at millions of years old.

One of the reasons why nuclear decay rates in rocks can be ‘apparently altered’ dramatically is because the radioactive component being measured in the rock is differentially water soluble. For example, the leaching of water soluble Potassium salts within a rock can confound the Potassium/Argon test.

An example of the serious conflict between dates is discussed here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp


B
Define what is meant by irreducible complexity.

I’ll defer to the Wikipedia definition on this one :-
An "irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality.

This has provoked the question 'what is the use of half an eye' to which Richard Dawkins has answered 'well it's 50% better than no eye'.

However, 50% of an eye would be completely BLIND – even a 1 mm ‘gap’ in the optic nerve (which would be a 99.9999% eye) would still be a blind eye.


This topic is discussed with examples here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp
and here:-
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted13.php

C
What is the demarkation point between designed and not designed?
What properties does one look at to see if something is designed?

The key aspect to design is the presence of BOTH complexity AND specificity.

Random processes can create simple systems like smooth water and they can also create very complex processes like hurricanes.

However, the unmistakable evidence of Design is the presence of specificity and complexity like a sports car or the DNA Molecule.

In addition to complexity and specificity, functionality provides proof of Intelligent Design.

This topic is discussed here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp

and here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/designer.asp

D
Define what is meant by "genetic information".
Explain what constitutes an "increase in genetic information".

Information is the virtual expression of INTELLIGENCE using an encoded language that is capable of being decoded by the recipient.
Both computer code and DNA code are examples of purposeful information.
The fact remains that ALL ultimate sources of information that have been identified, have been observed to be intelligent.
Where the source has been identified, the quality of the intelligence applied is also always observed to be directly proportional to the quality of the resultant information created.

The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity, density and specificity of the information in living systems) as to be of God.

Mutations DON’T produce new additional genetic information – which is the critical problem that must be explained by all ‘origins’ theories.

‘Genetic Information’ is the information encoded in the DNA of all living organisms.
An ‘increase in Genetic Information’ would be the production of a specific novel functional DNA sequence that isn’t the result of damage to a previously functional system.
To use an analogy, what we are looking for is the creation de novo of a knife complete with handle and blade – and not merely the breaking a shard of glass (which is analogous to the so-called ‘positive mutations’ that very rarely occur).

Mathematical proof that information is lost in a superficially ‘beneficial’ mutation' is provided here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp


aidan24326
I think creation scientists and ID proponents simply use 'irreducible complexity' as an excuse to play the God card. This is not real science in any way, as real science will always strive to find answers in this world without recourse to God

Firstly, irreducibly complex systems ARE objectively and observationally irreducibly complex – and Evolutionists are also not able to demonstrate otherwise.

It is real science based upon the appliance of logic to repeatably observable phenomena.

Secondly, the function of science is to go where the evidence leads without any pre-conditions or agenda, such as an atheistic determination to deny God.

I repeat my question to all atheists – what IF God exists and DID Create the Universe and all life – then how could science establish that this actually occurred if it rules out a priori the POSSIBILITY of Creation?
It is equivalent to a Creation Scientist ruling out all consideration of a materialistic explanation for all phenomenon – and BTW Creation Scientists DON’T rule out materialistic explanations.
Many phenomena ARE indeed satisfactorily explained by materialistic mechanisms – but the ‘origins question’ simply ISN’T.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

A.
What is wrong with mainstream science's current dating methods?

If it is certain assumptions, state what those assumptions are and how they specifically effect the measured dates?

Radiometric dating methods are based upon unproven ASSUMPTIONS about the radioactive content of the rock when it was formed,

Based on the amount of daughter product plus remaining radioisotopes, and easily measured. In addition, no rock is dated on a single sample, and the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes are compared relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope.

J C wrote:

the belief that no radioactivity was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that rock has existed

Rock can be identified as being a closed or open system. Not all rocks can be reliably dated, nor are they. A good example is the Lough Derg Inlier in Donegal - it is effectively undatable, consisting as it does of heavily reworked psammites containing very little radioisotopic material, and whose few more richly radioisotopic bands of material may or may not be part of the original formation. The radioisotopic "clock" in rock can be reset by certain extreme events (partial melting) - this is, again, a known thing in modern geology. Aside from this, the Creationist should realise that one is not dealing with soup here - the radioisotopes in rock are bound into minerals, and these minerals are known to be primary or secondary. Some minerals will allow exchange under certain circumstances, others will not under anything less than complete melting. All of this is known, well-studied, old ground.

J C wrote:

and the assumption that the rate of change in the radioactive decay has remained constant.

Decay rates have been directly measured over the last 40-100 years (varies by isotope), and have shown no change, let alone the kind of change that would be necessary to give the kind of dates that YECs need.

J C wrote:

One of the reasons why nuclear decay rates in rocks can be ‘apparently altered’ dramatically is because the radioactive component being measured in the rock is differentially water soluble. For example, the leaching of water soluble Potassium salts within a rock can confound the Potassium/Argon test.

And yet, you can get the same dates using all the differentially soluble radioisotopes. See also "closed" and "open" systems, above. All dating is done on unweathered rock, obviously!

The strongest evidence that all these worries are illusory is that radiometric dating techniques all agree - and that they also agree with tree-rings, ice-cores, varves, etc etc. The differences between radiometric dates found by different methods are orders of magnitude smaller than needed by YECs. As so often, Creationists take the simple fact of differences between two methods within expected error ranges (1-2%), and pretend that this is the same as an error of orders of magnitude.

Note that there are no "Creation Science" alternatives to radiometric dating methods. None of the esteemed luminaries of the movement have yet seen fit to provide a Creationist equivalent of carbon-dating, or even tree-rings - things can only be dated by the Bible (if mentioned).

J C wrote:

B
Define what is meant by irreducible complexity.

I’ll defer to the Wikipedia definition on this one :-
An "irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality.

This has provoked the question 'what is the use of half an eye' to which Richard Dawkins has answered 'well it's 50% better than no eye'.

However, 50% of an eye would be completely BLIND – even a 1 mm ‘gap’ in the optic nerve (which would be a 99.9999% eye) would still be a blind eye.

Yes, but then a human eye containing only rods (black/white, low light) and no cones (colour, good light) would also be "less of an eye" - but it would nevertheless be a huge improvement on being blind. As usual, the Creationist has had to choose a deliberately silly example - the "argument from willful ignorance" so beloved of the YEC.

J C wrote:

C
What is the demarkation point between designed and not designed?
What properties does one look at to see if something is designed?

The key aspect to design is the presence of BOTH complexity AND specificity.

Random processes can create simple systems like smooth water and they can also create very complex processes like hurricanes.

However, the unmistakable evidence of Design is the presence of specificity and complexity like a sports car or the DNA Molecule.

In addition to complexity and specificity, functionality provides proof of Intelligent Design.

Well, let's move that up a notch, then, and say "what do you mean by specificity?". It sounds awfully like teleology to me. Why is a hurricane not "specified" - particularly if it is intended to, say, deliver a warning from God?

J C wrote:

D
Define what is meant by "genetic information".
Explain what constitutes an "increase in genetic information".

Let us pause before reading this to savour the tight logical circle JC has provided for us, and the edifice he has built on top of it:

J C wrote:

Information is the virtual expression of INTELLIGENCE using an encoded language that is capable of being decoded by the recipient.

Step One - state that information is an expression of intelligence

J C wrote:

Both computer code and DNA code are examples of purposeful information.

Step Two - introduce a hand-waving comparison with an ill-defined term ("purposeful") which nevertheless presumes teleology.

J C wrote:

The fact remains that ALL ultimate sources of information that have been identified, have been observed to be intelligent.

Step Three - since we stated that information is an expression of intelligence back in Step One, we've proved what we originally assumed! QED, if we can drag that august expression into such sordid surroundings - on to bigger and better things...

J C wrote:

Where the source has been identified, the quality of the intelligence applied is also always observed to be directly proportional to the quality of the resultant information created.

Step Four - introduce a piece of speculation as if it were established fact, accompanied by more vague but scientific-sounding stuff. What is the "quality of information" and how is it measured? Who did this research? Who measured the intelligence, using what scale? How would we know that it holds true for large values? Is there an equation, and is it linear?

J C wrote:

The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science

Step Five - a quick denigration of science (poor foolish mortals), pointing out how they have failed to address an issue that hasn't arisen - in this case, because the idea of "purposeful information in living systems" is non-scientific, and has been introduced by the Creationist in the set of assumptions seen above.

J C wrote:

but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity, density and specificity of the information in living systems)

Step Six - a couple of big jumps here! First we describe the assumed "purposeful information" to be of "effectively infinite quality" - which sounds good, but is difficult to discern any meaning in, because "effectively infinite" is a statement applicable to quantity, not "quality". Next, a quick nod to apparently defining this phrase, by reference to "complexity" (fair point), "density" (what? DNA could be far more informationally dense per base pair if it cut out all the redundancy, and used more than 4 bases), and "specificity" (which means what?).

J C wrote:

as to be of God.

Step Seven - and finally, here we are, at the top of our very own Tower of Babble. If the information is "effectively infinite" then....it must be God what done it! Why? Because God is infinite. It might be pointed out that the Universe is also "effectively infinite" (and definitely omnipresent), and that the speed of light is "effectively infinite", as is the human capacity for self-deception.

J C wrote:

Mutations DON’T produce new additional genetic information – which is the critical problem that must be explained by all ‘origins’ theories.

‘Genetic Information’ is the information encoded in the DNA of all living organisms.
An ‘increase in Genetic Information’ would be the production of a specific novel functional DNA sequence that isn’t the result of damage to a previously functional system.
To use an analogy, what we are looking for is the creation de novo of a knife complete with handle and blade – and not merely the breaking a shard of glass (which is analogous to the so-called ‘positive mutations’ that very rarely occur).

What the Creationist appears to be looking for is for a mutation to produce a new, useful, protein? Again, I don't know about the "specific" - does that mean that Creationists get to choose what the protein has to do, in advance?

Interestingly, the requirement is couched in the language of Creationism - a designed item (knife, complete with handle and blade) is to be "created". This suggests that the inability to conceive of these things in anything other than the concrete language of everyday design is very deeply rooted in the Creationist - and that a mutation must do what Creationists believe God did before they will accept that mutations do what science says they do.

This is very close to the heart of the puzzle...the Creationist can only replace the agent of Creation - they cannot dispense with it, because they are mentally incapable of doing so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

First of all JC, if you ever hope to be taken seriously, you have to stop randomly capitalising everything.
You also never correctly answered my four questions from before.
I'm leaving them for now and hopefully you can concentrate on these and give me a serious answer.

J C wrote:

B
Define what is meant by irreducible complexity.

I’ll defer to the Wikipedia definition on this one :-
An "irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality.

I just stated above that wikipedia's definition isn't good enough.
What variables does one measure to arrive at a complexity value?
What value does complexity have to exceed to do this?

Don't give me examples, such as the eye, describe the general method.
And do not repeat what you have just said.

J C wrote:

C
What is the demarkation point between designed and not designed?
What properties does one look at to see if something is designed?

The key aspect to design is the presence of BOTH complexity AND specificity.

Random processes can create simple systems like smooth water and they can also create very complex processes like hurricanes.

However, the unmistakable evidence of Design is the presence of specificity and complexity like a sports car or the DNA Molecule.

In addition to complexity and specificity, functionality provides proof of Intelligent Design.

Okay, that’s a first level description. Now what is specificity?
Is it measured simultaneously with complexity?
Do they share common techniques of analysis?
Are the values numerical or qualitative?
Which is more important in arriving at a design conclusion, specificity or complexity?
In Creation Science's history of studying design, have there been any substances which the standard method claimed were designed, but turned out not to be?
If so, in what way did the paradigm change for measuring design?

Now more crucially in what way does something designed by God differ from something designed by man?
What are the differences in measured values?
Do things designed by God have a greater specificity value?
Does the fact that man uses materials made by God mean objects created by man have some design noise in the results?

(Also smooth water is not a simple system, it is more complicated than a black hole.)

J C

Scofflaw
The strongest evidence that all these worries are illusory is that radiometric dating techniques all agree - and that they also agree with tree-rings, ice-cores, varves, etc etc. The differences between radiometric dates found by different methods are orders of magnitude smaller than needed by YECs. As so often, Creationists take the simple fact of differences between two methods within expected error ranges (1-2%), and pretend that this is the same as an error of orders of magnitude.

Then please explain how living trees that were clearly buried under basalt can be radiometrically ‘dated’ at c40,000 years BP and the basalt that flowed over them was radiometrically ‘dated’ at c 40 million years BP. Could I remind you that this difference IS 100000% !!! :eek:

Here is the primary research report:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp


Scofflaw
The radioisotopic "clock" in rock can be reset by certain extreme events

Could a widespread tectonic and volcanic event that ripped the surface of the Earth apart (AKA Noah’s Flood) be described as a “certain extreme event"?:D


Scofflaw
All dating is done on unweathered rock, obviously!

How does that make any difference when water soluble isotopes can be leached out just as easily by groundwater?


Son Goku
I just stated above that wikipedia's definition (of Intelligent Design) isn't good enough.

So Wikipedia doesn't satisfy you?

What do you want – the only better one would be a biblical definition? !!!

Son Goku
smooth water is not a simple system, it is more complicated than a black hole.

I’ll bear that in mind next time that I jump into the bath!!!


Son Goku
What variables does one measure to arrive at a complexity value?
What value does complexity have to exceed to do this?
Don't give me examples, such as the eye, describe the general method.
And do not repeat what you have just said.

Could I answer you by way of example – and I will respect your request that I don’t talk about the eye. Instead, I will examine the evidence for design in the EAR (courtesy of harunyahya.com):-

Firstly the Evolutionist explanation :-

“THE ORIGIN OF THE EAR ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONISTS
The irreducibly complex system in the ear is something that evolutionists can never satisfactorily explain. When we look at the theories evolutionists occasionally propose, we are met by a facile and superficial logic...................

Our hearing organ, the ear, emerged as a result of the evolution of the endoderm and exoderm layers, which we call the skin. One proof of this is that we feel low sounds in the skin of our stomachs!”


Now let us examine the reasons that Creation Scientists believe the Ear to be Intelligently Designed and Irreducibly Complex:-

THE DESIGN IN THE EAR
Sound vibrations which pass down the auditory canal in this way reach the ear drum. This membrane is so sensitive that it can even perceive vibrations on the molecular level. Thanks to the exquisite sensitivity of the ear drum, you can easily hear somebody whispering from yards away. Or you can hear the vibration set up as you slowly rub two fingers together. Another extraordinary feature of the ear drum is that after receiving a vibration it returns to its normal state. Calculations have revealed that, after perceiving the tiniest vibrations, the ear drum becomes motionless again within up to four thousandths of a second. If it did not become motionless again so quickly, every sound we hear would echo in our ears.
The ear drum amplifies the vibrations which come to it, and sends them on to the middle ear region. Here, there are three bones in an extremely sensitive equilibrium with each other. These three bones are known as the hammer, the anvil and the stirrup; their function is to amplify the vibrations that reach them from the ear drum.
But the middle ear also possesses a kind of "buffer," to reduce exceedingly high levels of sound. This feature is provided by two of the body's smallest muscles, which control the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones. These muscles enable exceptionally loud noises to be reduced before they reach the inner ear. Thanks to this mechanism, we hear sounds that are loud enough to shock the system at a reduced volume. These muscles are involuntary, and come into operation automatically, in such a way that even if we are asleep and there is a loud noise beside us, these muscles immediately contract and reduce the intensity of the vibration reaching the inner ear.....................

THE INNER EAR
It will be seen that all we have examined so far consists of the vibrations in the outer and middle ear. The vibrations are constantly passed forward, but so far there is still nothing apart from a mechanical motion. In other words, there is as yet no sound.
The process whereby these mechanical motions begin to be turned into sound begins in the area known as the inner ear. In the inner ear is a spiral-shaped organ filled with a liquid. This organ is called the cochlea.
The complex structure of the inner ear. Inside this complicated bone structure is found both the system that maintains our balance, and also a very sensitive hearing system that turns vibrations into sound.
The last part of the middle ear is the stirrup bone, which is linked to the cochlea by a membrane. The mechanical vibrations in the middle ear are sent on to the liquid in the inner ear by this connection.
The vibrations which reach the liquid in the inner ear set up wave effects in the liquid. The inner walls of the cochlea are lined with small hair-like structures, called stereocilia, which are affected by this wave effect. These tiny hairs move strictly in accordance with the motion of the liquid. If a loud noise is emitted, then more hairs bend in a more powerful way. Every different frequency in the outside world sets up different effects in the hairs.
But what is the meaning of this movement of the hairs? What can the movement of the tiny hairs in the cochlea in the inner ear have to do with listening to a concert of classical music, recognizing a friend's voice, hearing the sound of a car, or distinguishing the millions of other kinds of sounds?
The answer is most interesting, and once more reveals the complexity of the design in the ear. Each of the tiny hairs covering the inner walls of the cochlea is actually a mechanism which lies on top of 16,000 hair cells. When these hairs sense a vibration, they move and push each other, just like dominos. This motion opens channels in the membranes of the cells lying beneath the hairs. And this allows the inflow of ions into the cells. When the hairs move in the opposite direction, these channels close again. Thus, this constant motion of the hairs causes constant changes in the chemical balance within the underlying cells, which in turn enables them to produce electrical signals. These electrical signals are forwarded to the brain by nerves, and the brain then processes them, turning them into sound.
The inner walls of the cochlea in the inner ear are lined with tiny hairs. These move in line with the wave motion set up in the liquid in the inner ear by vibrations coming from outside. In this way, the electrical balance of the cells to which the hairs are attached changes, and forms the signals we perceive as "sound."

Science has not been able to explain all the technical details of this system. While producing these electrical signals, the cells in the inner ear also manage to transmit the frequencies, strengths, and rhythms coming from the outside. This is such a complicated process that science has so far been unable to determine whether the frequency-distinguishing system takes place in the inner ear or in the brain.
At this point, there is an interesting fact we have to consider concerning the motion of the tiny hairs on the cells of the inner ear. Earlier, we said that the hairs waved back and forth, pushing each other like dominos. But usually the motion of these tiny hairs is very small. Research has shown that a hair motion of just by the width of an atom can be enough to set off the reaction in the cell. Experts who have studied the matter give a very interesting example to describe this sensitivity of these hairs: If we imagine a hair as being as tall as the Eiffel Tower, the effect on the cell attached to it begins with a motion equivalent to just 3 centimeters of the top of the tower.
Just as interesting is the question of how often these tiny hairs can move in a second. This changes according to the frequency of the sound. As the frequency gets higher, the number of times these tiny hairs can move reaches unbelievable levels: for instance, a sound of a frequency of 20,000 causes these tiny hairs to move 20,000 times a second.
Everything we have examined so far has shown us that the ear possesses an extraordinary design. On closer examination, it becomes evident that this design is irreducibly complex, since, in order for hearing to happen, it is necessary for all the component parts of the auditory system to be present and in complete working order. Take away any one of these-for instance, the hammer bone in the middle ear-or damage its structure, and you will no longer be able to hear anything. In order for you to hear, such different elements as the ear drum, the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones, the inner ear membrane, the cochlea, the liquid inside the cochlea, the tiny hairs that transmit the vibrations from the liquid to the underlying sensory cells, the latter cells themselves, the nerve network running from them to the brain, and the hearing center in the brain must all exist in complete working order. The system cannot develop "by stages," because the intermediate stages would serve no purpose.

Son Goku

I'll answer this in a while, but I'm surprised at the turn around. This post isn't actually vague and indecipherable, but has something which has enough form to criticise.

If you can, would you be able to give the general method for finding design. The example of the ear helps a bit, but it would be easier if I could see what in general the method is.

So Wikipedia doesn't satisfy you?

What do you want

The Wikipedia one explains the idea, but it doesn't give me a hands on, working scientist's way of measuring design. That is what I want. The strict workable definition.

robindch

> I'm surprised at the turn around. This post isn't actually vague and indecipherable,

Because it wasn't written by JC. The original text can be found on this creationist website:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_06.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_07.html

from which it was copied word for word and without attribution. So much for christian honesty!

Tut, tut.

robindch

> Then please explain how living trees that were clearly buried under
> basalt can be radiometrically ‘dated’ at c40,000 years BP

As yes, the irrepressible Snelling and his wooden arguments! You can read up on his ground-breaking researches here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html
http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html

...from which we can learn the following about Snelling's work:

In short, Dr. Snelling 'evaluated' the K-Ar test using samples that he, not to mention everybody else in the business, would have known would produce bad results and then, on this basis alone, gave a failing grade to the K-Ar Method as a whole. But all he has really done is to generate another piece of evidence to the effect that Geochron cannot do what they explicitly say they cannot do. From these considerations it is clear that Dr Snelling's "evaluation" is nothing more than the sheerest self-serving drivel. Dr. Snelling's opus, on the other hand, is nothing more than a piece of propaganda, written not to inform scientists, but only to mislead the unknowledgeable. Which is why any reputable scientific journal would have consigned it to the nearest circular filing receptacle. Which is why he didn't submit it to one.

Note the bits which are marked-up!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The strongest evidence that all these worries are illusory is that radiometric dating techniques all agree - and that they also agree with tree-rings, ice-cores, varves, etc etc. The differences between radiometric dates found by different methods are orders of magnitude smaller than needed by YECs. As so often, Creationists take the simple fact of differences between two methods within expected error ranges (1-2%), and pretend that this is the same as an error of orders of magnitude.

Then please explain how living trees that were clearly buried under basalt can be radiometrically ‘dated’ at c40,000 years BP and the basalt that flowed over them was radiometrically ‘dated’ at c 40 million years BP. Could I remind you that this difference IS 100,000% !!! :eek:

Here is the primary research report:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp

So, Snelling used a dating method known to be inaccurate beyond 50-60,000 years, applied it to a specimen with an expected age of 30-40 million years, got a funny result, and calls that a problem? I see that he doesn't comment on the agreement between the K-Ar date and the predicted geological age...

Dishonest, and puerile. Snelling's already tattered credibility (see earlier posts between wolfsbane and myself) crawls further down a hole.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The radioisotopic "clock" in rock can be reset by certain extreme events

Could a widespread tectonic and volcanic event that ripped the surface of the Earth apart (AKA Noah’s Flood) be described as a “certain extreme event"?

That would depend, I suppose, on what tectonic events the Bible describes as accompanying the Flood...we're looking for sufficient heat to cause partial melting rather than mere vulcanism/tectonism. You, perhaps, have a Genesis verse describing such a thing?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
All dating is done on unweathered rock, obviously!

How does that make any difference when water soluble isotopes can be leached out just as easily by groundwater?

1. Porosity. Most rocks aren't porous - those that are, are difficult to date. Basalt has almost no porosity.
2. Minerals. Isotopes aren't just sitting in rocks as "salts", waiting to be leached out - they are bound into the structures of crystalline minerals (in igneous/metamorphic rocks).

Anyone looking for a good (technically accurate & readable) account of radiometric dating, can have a read of this:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Good stuff, and specifically deals with a lot of YEC misconceptions/misinformation about dating methods, from a Christian perspective.

briefly,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, I am not sure of the wisdom of picking the ear as an example of an "irreducibly complex system" - it's well-studied, and many transitional forms are known. The evolution of the ear was worked out in the Victorian era - the stapes is used in hearing both in reptiles and mammals, but the malleus and incus bones migrated from the reptilian jaw into the mamalian ear - one of the reasons that chewing sounds so loud when you do it!

As a programmer and application "architect" who uses iterative design, I'd like to make a point about claims of "irreducible complexity" by reference to programming.

When one has finished writing an application, it bears all the hallmarks of "irreducible complexity" - it seems that you can't take out bits of code without causing the application to fail. This is a genuine, and real, feature of the system - as I've gone along, I written bits of code that depend on other bits of code, etc etc, so you can't just randomly start chopping out chunks of code. Sometimes, the end result is sufficiently sensitive to code removal that a single character change will stop the whole thing in its tracks.

However, let me make it absolutely clear that there were always earlier, working, versions of the application. Obviously, they did not include all the code in the final versions. On the other hand, they may have contained code that is not in the final version, and which was later streamlined.

So, we have an apparent paradox - on the one hand, you can't remove any code from the final version without breaking it (which surely means it has "irreducible complexity"), but on the other hand there were earlier working versions that didn't contain all the final code - and were therefore "reduced complexity" versions of the final application.

"Irreducible complexity" therefore only makes sense within a static frame of reference - only where we look at the present state of something, and actions we could perform upon it now. It does not make sense in an evolutionary/iterative framework, where we consider the past of the thing - and that is, of course, exactly what is at issue here.

If you remove part of an arch, the arch will fall. An arch, once produced (deliberately or accidentally), has "irreducible complexity" of structure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

robindch wrote:

> I'm surprised at the turn around. This post isn't actually vague and indecipherable,

Because it wasn't written by JC. The original text can be found on this creationist website:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_06.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_07.html

from which it was copied word for word and without attribution. So much for christian honesty!

Tut, tut.

My quote was actually from
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted13.php

And I DID acknowledge my source in the first paragraph of my reply to Son Goku as follows:-

"Could I answer you by way of example – and I will respect your request that I don’t talk about the eye. Instead, I will examine the evidence for design in the EAR (courtesy of harunyahya.com) "

Tut, tut yourself Robin

J C

Scofflaw
How does a Catholic come to favour the materialist explanation (of origins) over the Biblical one?

I don’t know, but it is a very good question!!!

Scofflaw
So, Snelling used a dating method known to be inaccurate beyond 50-60,000 years, applied it to a specimen with an expected age of 30-40 million years, got a funny result, and calls that a problem?

Can I allow Dr Snelling refute your allegations in his own words as follows:-

“It is immediately evident that there was detectable radiocarbon in all wood samples, so that the laboratories’ staff had neither hesitation nor difficulties in calculating 14C ‘ages’. When subsequently questioned regarding the limits of the analytical method for the radiocarbon and any possibility of contamination, staff at both laboratories (Ph.D. scientists) were readily insistent that the results, with one exception, were within the detection limits and therefore provided quotable finite ‘ages’!

Furthermore, they pointed to the almost identical δ13C results (last column in Table 1), consistent with the carbon being organic carbon from wood, and indicating no possibility of contamination. So the results in Table 1 are staunchly defended by the laboratories as valid, indicating an ‘age’ of perhaps 44,000–45,500 years for the wood encased in the basalt retrieved from the drill core.”

** Original copies of all the official laboratory analytical and ‘dating’ reports, and the correspondence with staff of the laboratories, have been kept on file by Dr. Snelling.


Scofflaw
That would depend, I suppose, on what tectonic events the Bible describes as accompanying the Flood...we're looking for sufficient heat to cause partial melting rather than mere vulcanism/tectonism. You, perhaps, have a Genesis verse describing such a thing?

Volcanism / tectonism would undoubtedly be involved in the 'Crust Ripping' events described in Gen 7:11 at the start of Noah’s Flood and the 'mountain / valley' forming processes that allowed the waters to run off the land as described in Gen 8:2-14.


Scofflaw
1. Porosity. Most rocks aren't porous - those that are, are difficult to date. Basalt has almost no porosity.
2. Minerals. Isotopes aren't just sitting in rocks as "salts", waiting to be leached out - they are bound into the structures of crystalline minerals (in igneous/metamorphic rocks).

Basalt isn't completely impervious to water. Equally, minerals can be leached out of igneous rocks when they are formed under water.
For example, rock samples taken from submarine lava flows from Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.

J C

Scofflaw
By the way, I am not sure of the wisdom of picking the ear as an example of an "irreducibly complex system" - it's well-studied, and many transitional forms are known. The evolution of the ear was worked out in the Victorian era - the stapes is used in hearing both in reptiles and mammals, but the malleus and incus bones migrated from the reptilian jaw into the mamalian ear - one of the reasons that chewing sounds so loud when you do it!

Chewing is heard by us because our teeth are so close to our ears – and it is NOT very loud, in any event.

I’ll defer to http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted13.php for the remainder of the answer to your question:-

“But, as we saw earlier, reptiles' ear structures are very different from those of mammals. All mammals possess the middle ear structure made up of the three bones that have just been described, whereas there is only one bone in the middle ear of all reptiles. In response to this, evolutionists claim that four separate bones in the jaws of reptiles changed place by chance and "migrated" to the middle ear, and that again by chance they took on just the right shape to turn into the anvil and stirrup bones. According to this imaginary scenario, the single bone in reptiles' middle ears changed shape and turned into the hammer bone, and the exceedingly sensitive equilibrium between the three bones in the middle ear was established by chance.
This fantastical claim, based on no scientific discovery at all (it corresponds to nothing in the fossil record), is exceedingly self-contradictory. The most important point here is that such an imaginary change would leave a creature deaf. Naturally, a living thing cannot continue hearing if its jaw bones slowly start entering its inner ear. Such a species would be at a disadvantage compared to other living things and would be eliminated, according to what evolutionists themselves believe.

On the other hand, a living thing whose jaw bones were moving towards its ear would end up with a defective jaw. Such a creature's ability to chew would greatly decrease, and even disappear totally. This, too, would disadvantage the creature, and result in its elimination.
In short, the results which emerge when one examines the structure of ears and their origins clearly invalidate evolutionist assumptions. The Grolier Encyclopedia, an evolutionist source, makes the admission that "the origin of the ear is shrouded in uncertainty." Actually, anyone who studies the system in the ear with common sense can easily see that it is the product of a conscious creation.”


Scofflaw
As a programmer and application "architect" who uses iterative design, I'd like to make a point about claims of "irreducible complexity" by reference to programming.

When one has finished writing an application, it bears all the hallmarks of "irreducible complexity" - it seems that you can't take out bits of code without causing the application to fail. This is a genuine, and real, feature of the system - as I've gone along, I written bits of code that depend on other bits of code, etc etc, so you can't just randomly start chopping out chunks of code. Sometimes, the end result is sufficiently sensitive to code removal that a single character change will stop the whole thing in its tracks.

However, let me make it absolutely clear that there were always earlier, working, versions of the application. Obviously, they did not include all the code in the final versions. On the other hand, they may have contained code that is not in the final version, and which was later streamlined.

What you are describing, Scofflaw, is the production of different INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED computer programmes – and you have also confirmed that they are all IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX – which is what we would expect from all INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED artefacts, including computer programmes.

Your computer programming experience is therefore fully in line with what we observe and expect with all intelligently created artefacts from Computer Programmes to Mankind!!! :cool:

Scofflaw
So, we have an apparent paradox - on the one hand, you can't remove any code from the final version without breaking it (which surely means it has "irreducible complexity"), but on the other hand there were earlier working versions that didn't contain all the final code - and were therefore "reduced complexity" versions of the final application.

There is no paradox. What you are describing in an evolving process of Intelligent Design that results in a series of Irreducibly Complex programmes, with each programme becoming more complex and/or perfect than it’s predecessor.
This is the usual process used by Human Beings to create useful artefacts and is analogous to the concept of Theistic Evolution.
Indeed many of the leading ID proponents such as Dr. Behe are Theistic Evolutionists – and so ID, in and of itself, is certainly not the exclusive preserve of Creationists.
However, a process of gradual evolution isn't required by an omniscient God – and the fossil and living records don’t show any evidence of such a process being deployed by Him.:cool:

In summary:-
ID merely confirms that living systems were produced by an intelligent agent or agents.
It is silent on both the identity of the agent(s) and the method deployed.

Creation Scientists have proven the agent to be God and the method to be Direct Creation.:cool: :cool:

robindch

> courtesy of harunyahya.com

JC - as you missed my point, I'll make it more clearly! In the world where real scientists work and live, it's customary to provide full references to stuff, not just a vague handwave in the direction of a site run by a turkish man with a bagful bag of chips on his shoulder and degree in arts! Who thinks that "The world will fill with religious unity" because Jesus has recently returned to the earth, together with the Mahdi, but both are unfortunately in hiding to protect them both from attacks by "atheists" and other "terrorists"!

While creationists do live in their own little imaginary world, this guy really is taking it to new extremes of silliness! Nice suit, though.

J C

robindch wrote:

> courtesy of harunyahya.com

JC - as you missed my point, I'll make it more clearly! In the world where real scientists work and live, it's customary to provide full references to stuff, not just a vague handwave in the direction of a site run by a turkish man with a bagful bag of chips on his shoulder and degree in arts! Who thinks that "The world will fill with religious unity" because Jesus has recently returned to the earth, together with the Mahdi, but both are unfortunately in hiding to protect them both from attacks by "atheists" and other "terrorists"!

While creationists do live in their own little imaginary world, this guy really is taking it to new extremes of silliness! Nice suit, though.

Being a Bible Believing Christian I don't share Mr. Adnan Oktar's faith position or any of his other beliefs.
However, I do recognise the scientific validity of his writings in regard to 'Refuting Darwinism'.

Your comments above prove :-
1. That Creationists have an open mind and read the writings of people on all sides of the 'origins debate'.

2. That Creation Scientists go where the EVIDENCE leads - which is what Evolutionists should ALSO do.

3. That Creationists DON'T discriminate based upon a persons faith position.

It also proves what I have previously said on this thread - that Creation Science contains within it's ranks people from ALL Christian denomenations as well as Moslems and Jews - and therefore is in line with the official religious position of the majority of Humanity.

BTW, all substantive claims and quotations on the "Refuting Darwinism" site ARE fully referenced.