Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
5uspect said:
When their enviroment changed, they would need to adapt. It did change when they left Eden.Since when did adaption become part of creationism? Where in the bible does it say that anything adapted to its enviroment? Does it not say that god created the fish in the sea and the cattle etc? Why would they need to adapt?
I think so - with the accompanying Ice Age. All the post-Flood climate would have been greatly altered.Wasn't the flood the only major period of geological change?
Funny how 'evolutionists' fits better here.Its funny how creationists are in a constant retreat as more and more evidence shows the error of their beliefs.
Correct.First god created all the animals
I don't think anyone suggested God created poodles, nor Rhode Island Reds, etc. God created the common ancestors of today's dogs, chickens, etc. What's so problematic about that?but then they found all these fossils... now he just created (or intelligently designed) their common ansestors.
There were some strange ideas put forward when Christians were first confronted with Darwinism. Theistic evolution was one, a 'test' was another, the 'Gap Theory' also a contender.Suddenly creationism discovers the new scientific concept of adaption, tho others claim that the fossil record and hence adaption are a test by satan.
But when real thought was given, the normal understanding of the Genesis account held its own.
But evolution holds that simple organisms - indeed non-life - gained complexity via time and enviroment, something that is not observed in real life. That is a pretty big presumption.Evolution is the adaption of an organism to its enviorment by means of the nonrandom natural selection of mutations which improve the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce. Your problem is that you have to make everything fit into your biblical view. This is why you can accept the relatively small skin colour adaptions of humans but not the evolution of complex organisms from a common ansestor. Evolution requires no such presumptions. The vast timescales involved are a matter of fact.
You have evidence of an inflating genome? You believe poodles can be back-bred to their original non-poodle ancestor?Why should it mean a loss of information? Have you evidence of shrinking genomes? "of course" you haven't explained why.
An interesting article http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_25june2001.asp From which: Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly — see Is Your Dog Some Kind of Degenerate Mutant?. However, does this give support to belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Most definitely not. The sort of variety created by mutations (for example, hairless, pushed in face, stumpy legs, etc.) is due to loss of information, not the addition of new genetic information. This is not the stuff that would change a lizard (or a dinosaur) into a bird, for example — this requires the addition of the specifications (coded in the DNA) for making feathers (see scannning electron micrographs, left), flow-through lungs connected to hollow bones, bird-brains, etc.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
5uspect said:
Yes, the 10 million year old soft tissue really confirmed for me the gullibility of today's scientists.The oldest dna find I know about is from Siberia reported in Science. You can find an article in New Scientist about it. There was also something recently about 10 million year old soft tissue from a frog and a T-Rex I saw the other day on BBC News.
Agreed.The problem is you don't accept their dating process so you can fit the age of this DNA to suit yourself.
Could be before or after the Flood. Nothing to say local floods did not occur before the Big one, and they certainly have occurred since.No doubt you'll claim the extinction event that happened in Siberia 11,000 years ago is actually the flood and is incorrectly dated.
So the Dodo is still with us? No other mechanisms for extinction? Surely you have conceded other mechanisms by citing the article itself?However this is the same extinction event that wiped out the Mammoths, saber tooth cats and other giant mammals, so unless they missed the boat we would expect to see some of these animals alive today.0 -
Son Goku wrote:Are you going to answer my questions JC, or are they going to become like the last four?
The last four what?
I have comprehensively and devastatingly answered all of your questions.:)
Please answer my question that I asked several posts back::D
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?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
That's very irritating JC, as well as being just plain stupid.J C wrote:The last four what?
I have comprehensively and devastatingly answered all of your questions.:)
I asked you four questions, but the most pressing one is this:
Riemannian Geometry.
What are the assumptions and how do they relate to the calculations exactly.
Would you freaking answer me?
Predicted response: You'll just state there are assumptions and not say what they are or you'll repeat that post about engineers using Riemannian Geometry like you've posted already or you won't answer at all, but later claim you did in a repeat of what has just occured.0 -
-
Son Goku
I asked you four questions, but the most pressing one is this:
Riemannian Geometry.
Four-dimensional Riemannian Geometry doesn’t “magically” measure the definitive distance of stars beyond the current 200 light year limit of resolution provided by direct three-dimensional trigonometry.
Similarly, using a fifth or sixth dimension doesn’t extend our limits of resolution either. :cool:
The ASSUMPTIONS made in establishing the direction in which a star is actually travelling, it’s position relative to other stars (and their actual positions/distances) or indeed the star’s actual rate of speed (which are all critical to the calculation) are just that - assumptions.
NOW please answer MY question:-
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?
BTW Forensic Science CAN answer this question which essentially revolves around the detection of intelligent activity – and it’s confirmation or denial in the case of living systems.:D
.0 -
> B]5uspect[/B terrorism resulting from the conflicts between secular
> western society and fundamentist islam
Raising my hand tremulously, I would suggest that the USA's foreign policy is driven at least as much by the "end-times" fixations of the christian fundamentalist lobby, as it is by any specifically secular interests! With both sides in the conflict propelled towards the edge by their own lunatic, messianic interpretations of their own doomsday books.
> It is the differences that people label themselves with that
> cause hatred and violence.
Close. People have very rarely, if ever, risen up en masse without first finding a leader who has noticed that it's easy to command unquestioning majority support if you can come up with effective labels and make them stick -- basic ingroup and outgroup psychology. The nature of the differences themselves is fairly unimportant once the social conditioning can be put in place (as Jane Elliott http://www.janeelliott.com/ of the worryingly effective "Blue eyes, brown eyes" conditioning-program has shown).
And what's religion? Well, a system which provides a fundamental dogma that you and people like you are good and will go to heaven, everybody else is bad and will go to hell, and that you should never question your fundamental dogmas; defend them to the death, even! Pffff -- I'm surprised humanity has lasted as long as it has with religious mind-contagions 0 -
-
Sapien
Science does not rule anything out God a priori.
Glad to hear this.
Up to now, the scientific investigation of the activities of God has been confined to Creation Scientists and ID Proponents. Fortunately, they have developed the forensic tools to complete this investigation.
It is nice to see that Materialistic Evolutionists are ALSO now prepared to join in the evaluation of the forensic evidence for intelligent activity in the original production of living systems.
Are we NOW about to enter the Information Age in Evolutionary Biology? 0 -
Did you read the rest of my post?J C wrote:Sapien
Science does not rule anything out God a priori.
Glad to hear this.0 -
J C wrote: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!!!
Thanks. I was hoping for an actual answer, though. Creationists constantly claim that scientists are blind to the possibility of Biblical truth - without noting that the majority of scientists follow a religion, many of them the Abrahamic religions.JC wrote: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 ?13C 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.
Do they include this one from the people doing the dating?Geochron Labs wrote:From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@GEOCHRONLABS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions
Dear Joe
I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures
lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.
Best regards.
Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager
Snelling is either dishonest or incompetent - a point made before, and not refuted. If you choose to believe him because he says things you like hearing, that's your lookout.
To save time, I will also quote Snelling's response to the above:Snelling wrote:"If it wasn't a sample of fossilised wood, then apart from Dr Cherkinsky's obfuscation, how do Drs Meert and Cherkinsky explain its radiocarbon content? Quite clearly their opposition to the results of this genuine research study are more to do with their a priori belief about the age of the earth and its rock strata than with science. The evidence they are trying to cover with a smokescreen of personal abuse instead speaks for itself. "
They're all out of step but my Johnny. Snelling could read the literature, I suppose, but that might get in the way of his devotion to story-telling. At least this argues for incompetence rather than dishonesty - although having said that, I can't see anything in Cherkinsky's email that constitutes a "smokescreen of personal abuse". Methinks the Snelling doth protest too much...
On the scientific side, C14 is produced in carbonaceous material by incident radiation from radioisotope decay in the host rock - one of the reasons that radiocarbon dating is unreliable in older materials, where the added C14 becomes a significant source of error. Of course, a good scientist would know this...JC wrote: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.
I see. So our descriptions of tectonic events are "all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" and "the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky".
Water come up, water go down. No mention of anything tectonic. Not a word about mountains falling or valleys rising, nothing about the earth cracking open.
Stick to the Bible. Your speculations are not evidence either Biblically or scientifically.JC wrote: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.
Actually, leaching a mineral out of a rock is pretty difficult. Permeability in basalt is fracture permeability, not intergranular - so alteration by water, if present at all, is confined to fracture margins. Dating is done only on fresh, unaltered rock - and it is extremely easy to tell the difference between altered and unaltered rock. Snelling may be happy to work with chunks of rock and iron concretions he's picked up off mine rubbish tips, but that's because he's either incompetent or dishonest.JC wrote: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.
By no lesser light than....Snelling! A man who can't tell an iron concretion from a piece of wood, and who believes that using radiodating techniques improperly will impress the stupid and gullible...but then, why wouldn't he?
wearily,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Evolution of the Mammalian Ear
I’ll defer to http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted13.php for the remainder of the answer to your question:-
In turn, since I don't see any point in writing a long rebuttal of your cut and paste, I will refer you (or more probably, the interested reader) to talkorigins.org. I will content myself with quoting a couple of points from it:These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function. Young-earth creationist Duane Gish stated the problem this way:
"All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. ... Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes. ... There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear." (Gish 1978, p. 80)
Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaffe numerous times since he wrote these words.
...and...How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.
...and...The[se] fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look.
Argument from willful ignorance again. In your case, borrowed arguments.J C wrote: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.
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!!!
You should probably have waited to read the next bit...although it is clear you don't understand my point anyway.J C wrote: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.
Ah, yes, you have missed my point completely. You have failed to grasp the point about irreducible complexity being no such thing in any iterative system, and clutched at the fact that I design my software - irrelevant, since the iteration point would apply equally to a genetically evolved algorithm.
Based on what you say above - "an evolving process of Intelligent Design that results in a series of Irreducibly Complex programmes" - it is tragically clear that you have no notion whatsoever of what "irreducibly complex" could possibly mean, even if it weren't just a clever-sounding piece of handwaving.
The very fact that you can turn A into B, and B into C, where each step is both a transitional form and irreducibly complex, means only that evolution is a one-way process. That in turn shows you that irreducible complexity is not a hallmark of design at all. No designer is required, only the iteration and the change.
I appreciate that you cannot possibly comprehend this, because it appears that you literally cannot imagine a process without an agent.J C wrote: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.
Indeed - ID is a deliberately vague "big tent" political movement.J C wrote: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.
To you, that is clearly the case.J C wrote: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.
JC, it's obvious to even an intelligent child that ID is a front for Creationism. It's been adjudged so in court, and is accepted as such by everyone. If it were not already blindingly obvious, the Wedge Strategy document makes it as clear as daylight.
To continue to claim that this is not the case, in the face of all evidence, casts doubt upon either your mental abilities or your motives.
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sapien
Did you read the rest of my post?
I certainly did.
The NOVEL item was that you confirmed that science DOESN’T rule out the investigation of possible actions by God a priori.
Fortunately, Creation Scientists and ID Proponents have already developed the forensic tools to investigate this evidence.
It is nice to see that Materialistic Evolutionists are ALSO now prepared to join in the evaluation of the forensic evidence for the intelligent production of living systems.
Is Evolutionary Biology therefore about to enter the ‘Information Age’?
Scofflaw
Creationists constantly claim that scientists are blind to the possibility of Biblical truth - without noting that the majority of scientists follow a religion, many of them the Abrahamic religions.
Creationists don’t make any such claims as many leading scientists are themselves Creationists.
Equally, Creation Science contains within it’s ranks members of all of the major Christian Denominations as well as Jews and Moslems
....and Sapien has just confirmed that science DOESN’T rule out the investigation of possible actions by God a priori.
Scofflaw
On the scientific side, C14 is produced in carbonaceous material by incident radiation from radioisotope decay in the host rock - one of the reasons that radiocarbon dating is unreliable in older materials, where the added C14 becomes a significant source of error.
ANOTHER good reason why we can draw no reliable conclusion from the radio-carbon dating of anything in excess of about 2,000 years.
Scofflaw
So our descriptions of tectonic events are "all the springs of the great deep burst forth,”
Could I remind you that this verse is describing a worldwide 150-day process where massive quantities of water were released under pressure via the rupturing of the Earths Crust (as implied by the phrase “burst forth”).
Equally, the only way that the “waters returned from off the earth continually” at the end of Noah’s Flood would be after massive upthrusts produced our modern continents and their mountains with corresponding downthrusts producing our modern ocean basins and their trenches.
Massive volcanic and tectonoic processes would undoubtedly accompany such large-scale processes.
Scofflaw (quoting Dr Duane T Gish)
"All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. ... Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes. ... There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear." (Gish 1978, p. 80)
And this was the ‘great rebuttal’ to the above correct statement by Dr Gish on talkorigins.org……………..
“As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today."
A faith based statement of unfounded hope that “transitional species must have existed” followed by an admission that nobody has ever seen them!! Sounds like the Yeti of Evolutionary Science!!!:D
Equally, why would a reptile with perfectly good hearing and one auditory ossicle achieve ANY advantage from moving to three auditory ossicles?
And finally the supposed ‘clincher’ on the talkorigins site …………..
“It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones”
To which I will merely ask, what does articulated jaws on a snake, that allows it to EAT things larger than itself, have ANYTHING to do with HEARING??
Scofflaw
Argument from willful ignorance again. In your case, borrowed arguments.
If the cap fits, Scofflaw and all that!!!
Wicknight
Sex between animals, particularly mammals in a very small containment area would not have happened
You have obviously had a very ‘sheltered’ existence Wicknight.
You should come and see a stallion ‘perform’ in a ‘small containment area’!!!:eek:
Wicknight
So what stopped the lions (who were rapidly increasing in numbers) from simply killing all the zebras, or deer, or pigs etc. A lion will eat an animal every 2 weeks. That is much much faster than a mammal such as a zebra can reproduced. Half the animals off the ark would have been eatten in their first few weeks.
There was ‘easier meat’ available for the carnivores in the form of carrion from all of the dead animals killed by the Flood and piled up in ‘Elephant Graveyards’ all over the Earth.
The sheer volume of dead animals in these ‘putrid piles’ would have preserved most of the meat in the anaerobic environment thus created.
Something akin to anaerobic bogs that have preserved protein-rich remains for centuries.
The Lion is a lazy animal – and they only started chasing Zebra when the carrion ran out. By then the Zebra probably numbered many thousands.!!! :cool: :cool:0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Well, they're doing pretty well at back-breeding the quagga from the zebra. Also, breeds of sheep and varieties of cereal. Was that the kind of thing you had in mind, or would you like to shift the goalposts?
According to Wikipedia "Recent genetic research at the Smithsonian Institution has demonstrated that the quagga was in fact not a separate species at all, but diverged from the extremely variable plains zebra, "
It is no surprise therefore that "the extremely variable plains zebra" can be selectively 'back bred' to produce a Quagga-like variant!!!
However, pedigree animals like Poodles 'breed true' i.e WITHOUT variation due to the elimination of genetic diversity during the selection process that led to the breed in the first place. That is why crossing one Poodle with another Poodle always produces more Poodles - i.e always a Wuff, Wuff - but never a Wolf, Wolf !!!:D 0 -
> Could I remind you that this verse is describing a worldwide 150-day
> process where massive quantities of water were released under pressure
> via the rupturing of the Earths Crust (as implied by the phrase “bust forth”).
150 days? Nah, 40 days. Gotta be, coz it sez it in the bible! Anyhow, I refer you to my previous graphic:
where I show the almost nine kilometers of water underneath the earth necessary to bury Everest as described.
Presumably the oil which god unhelpfully placed underneath the feet of muslims, russians and others, is floating on top of the underground ocean -- perhaps this prediction is something that creationist geologists could examine? What does AiG have to say on this?0 -
robindch wrote:> I refer you to my previous graphic:
where I show the almost nine kilometers of water underneath the earth necessary to bury Everest as described.
Nice graphic Robin.
Unfortunately it is not to scale.
Equally, Everest only arose AFTER the Flood - and ALL of the water wasn't under the surface of the Earth BEFORE the Flood.
But well done - you are at long last beginning the think like a Creationist!!!:D
Your enthusiasm to 'get going' on the latest Creation research is indeed invigorating
.....and with Sapien confirming that science DOESN’T rule out the investigation of possible actions by God a priori - I feel a Paradigm Shift coming on. 0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement