The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw · 22-08-2006 4:03am

wolfsbane wrote:

But nice to see some truth get through at times.:) This from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp
Even the journal Science, itself known to refuse to publish creationist views, wrote:
Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.

Sigh. No doubt you see this as a rare peep of light through the obscuring clouds. If you read scientific journals, rather than relying on AiG to read them for you, you'd see that Creationism is regularly discussed.

Come on, wolfsbane - read for yourself! You read the Bible for yourself, after all, as do I...but I read the scientific literature, and you do not. Yet you are sure of your judgement on scientists - how can that be, when you only have second-hand reports of what they do or do not say?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C · 22-08-2006 9:46pm

Diogenes wrote:

Just on an aside can creationist explain for example the fossils of giant dragonflies and millipides and other insects that are found?

Frankly I'm eager to read the tortured logic of how you can explain how species shrunk in 4,000 years.

You forget that Creation Science accepts that significant DEGENERATION has occurred since the Fall.

To answer your question, there are many possible causes - including a different gas balance in the atmosphere pre- v post-Flood.

I myself would really enjoy the "tortured logic" by which Evolutionists explain how insects have 'improved' over the last several (pick a figure, any figure) million years by becoming ever PUNIER!!!!

:eek:

wolfsbane · 22-08-2006 9:55pm

Scofflaw said:

Sigh. No doubt you see this as a rare peep of light through the obscuring clouds. If you read scientific journals, rather than relying on AiG to read them for you, you'd see that Creationism is regularly discussed.

Come on, wolfsbane - read for yourself! You read the Bible for yourself, after all, as do I...but I read the scientific literature, and you do not. Yet you are sure of your judgement on scientists - how can that be, when you only have second-hand reports of what they do or do not say?

Just a quickie for tonight:
You need to read more carefully then, for you missed entirely my point here. I was not saying that Creationism is not discussed (it is not debated) in the scientific journals. The quote was to show an acknowledgement from one within the evolutionist camp that suppression does occur: Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.

And a statement by AiG on their position on origins teaching in schools:
Misrepresented (sigh) time and time again
by Mark Looy, AiG–USA
August 22, 2006
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0822misrepresented.asp

robindch · 22-08-2006 10:52pm

> [...] there doesn't yet exist a comprehensive Creationist re-telling
> of 20th Century history [...]

Probably because they haven't had enough time to create a money-making historical fiction, what with all that time they spend fabricating their money-spinning biological one?

Who knows, perhaps it's (honorary) Dr. Ham's next great venture after his creationist museum? Imagine: a theme park where you can learn that the existence of the Crusades is a matter of raging dispute amongst historians ("Were you there?"(tm)), that the French Wars of Religion actually took place between muslims and jews and concerned the ownership of a small pig, that radio-carbon dating suggests that the Spanish Inquisition was acutally a Monty Python sketch written 'specially to bash christians and that the Salem Witch Trials "prefigured" Miller's The Crucible, and therefore never happened either. And so on.

I'd imagine he'd make (another) fortune. Copyright on the above ideas is mine, btw, Ken.

robindch · 22-08-2006 11:10pm

> What I did say was that the scientific establishment elite are attempting to control what the masses believe by
> feeding them selective arguments and gagging opposing ones.

And, again (!!!), I ask you to name scientists who are in this "scientific establishment elite". But you won't because you can't because there is no such thing. Science does not operate with central control. There is no "science" version of AiG out there instructing people what to believe, no matter how much you would like there to be one.

And who are the "masses" who believe? Virtually nobody except professional biologists read the biology journals, so who on earth is having information "gagged"? The people who read and publish are the same folks!

> Propaganda in other words. Obviously that cannot blind scientists, but
> it does influence them and encourages them to think in fixed lines.

It's interesting you should say this, as it's quite a climb down from you recent comments comparing the habits of working biologists to those of the Nazis. This is good.

> > Do *you* can recognise [...] that there exists one or more small groups which tell much larger groups,
> > of which you are a member, exactly what to think on each topic of creationism.
>
> [wolfsbane] No, it does not happen.

Why do you say it does not happen when (honorary) Dr Ham -- far from pretending he doesn't suppress or distort information -- actually proudly boasts that this exactly what happens in his organization:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

And, btw, this isn't an optional thing. If you want to work at AiG, you have to sign this document which explicitly tells you to discard anything that doesn't agree with you. Isn't Ham doing *exactly* what you criticize the non-existent "scientific establishment elite" for doing?

.

J C · 22-08-2006 11:25pm

Asiaprod
And don't forget the lazy lions who went from being top predators requiring fresh meat, to carrion feeders.

The Lion is indeed a very languid (AKA LAZY) creature (in-between the occasional chase after prey) – and even then it is the Lionesses that do most of the work!!!

I would prefer to characterise the change that you have referred to above as the Lion moving from an omnivorous diet at the time of the Flood to it’s modern specialised diet including the LOSS of it’s former ability to synthesise Taurine!!! :cool:

This is all very much in line with Creation and contradictory of Evolution - of BOTH the Lamarkian and Darwinian varieties!!!

Wicknight
The idea that the space on the Ark could hold 8,000 animals, including the larger ones like elephants, rhinos, hippos, is clearly not possible.

Standard Evolutionist Question – and the equally standard Creationist answer can be found here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

…..and I would suggest that anybody studying for their ‘repeats' at http://www.train2equip.com/quiz.asp can avoid ‘flunking’ the Dinosaur question next time by reading the following:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4351news7-26-2000.asp

Wicknight
The reason Creationists arguments are ignored (not suppressed, but looked and briefly and then ignored) is because they are (so far) rather stupid and silly

Creationists claim that the incredible specified complexity repeatably observable in ALL living cells was Created by an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Evolutionists claim that ‘it just happened to happen’ without a shred of evidence for such an assertion.

It’s like somebody looking at a Super Computer and saying that ‘it just happened to happen’

Scofflaw
Ah, you mean that "pure common sense" would suggest a designer as one option to explain nature - Intelligent Design sensu stricto.
Yes, that's true.

At last you appear to be accepting the merits of “common sense” Scofflaw!!

But no, it was a ‘false dawn’!!

Scofflaw
As I've noted before, it (Creation) was the original scientific position, which had to be progressively abandoned in the face of the evidence.

Yes, abandoned by SOME in favour of Lamarkian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of neo-Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Punctuated Equilibrium, etc., etc.:D

And eventually SOME of these various EVOLUTIONISTS became Creationists!! :cool:

Scofflaw · 23-08-2006 12:32am

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Just a quickie for tonight:
You need to read more carefully then, for you missed entirely my point here. I was not saying that Creationism is not discussed (it is not debated) in the scientific journals. The quote was to show an acknowledgement from one within the evolutionist camp that suppression does occur: Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.

I'd considered that aspect...however, you see, your example doesn't show suppression. No-one would write "some members of the Politburo are nearly as illiberal towards capitalism as capitalism once was towards communism", because they would be taking their life in their hands, and in any case the sentence would not be published. That's suppression.

That one scientific journal can comment on the apparent illiberality of another shows that not even a minimal level of suppression exists - since, as I keep pointing out, the suppression you dream of requires a science-wide policy.

Yes, some members of the scientific establishment are illiberal towards religion - deeply so, in some cases (eg Dawkins). In the US, the issue is both polarised and politicised, and such illiberality is generally political.

Discussions about Creationism are all the more common in the non-US anglophone scientific journals - and New Scientist recently carried an editorial condemning Dawkins' attacks on religion as misguided and pointless.

All of which brings me back to the same points. I'll lay them out:

1. There is no policy of suppression of Creationism in science, because there is no central body to issue or enforce such a policy. Groupthink, which might cause problems, only afflicts relatively small groups.

2. Individual journals are entirely free to decide what they do or do not publish (as seen above, they can freely point out other journals' illiberality).

3. That journals do not publish the "scientific" work of Creationism is entirely down to the pseudo-scientific nature of Creationist "research".

I know you can't believe the above, but I'd just like to make it quite clear that your fantasy of a scientific elite suppressing worthy Creationist research is just that - a fantasy. Standard conspiracy theory stuff, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 23-08-2006 12:38am

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
As I've noted before, it (Creation) was the original scientific position, which had to be progressively abandoned in the face of the evidence.

Yes, abandoned by SOME in favour of Lamarkian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of neo-Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Punctuated Equilibrium, etc., etc.:D

And eventually SOME of these various EVOLUTIONISTS became Creationists!! :cool:

Let me pull you up for the umpteenth time on this piece of utterly untrue rubbish. All the examples you have offered of "evolutionists who became creationists" have been untrue - every single one of them was a creationist before they did science. Every. Single. One. Do you understand? Every. Single. One. Was. Already. A. Creationist. You. Are. Talking. Rubbish.

that last 'talking' is an adjective,
Scofflaw

Diogenes · 23-08-2006 2:11am

J C wrote:

You forget that Creation Science accepts that significant DEGENERATION has occurred since the Fall.

You accept it you cannot prove it. That doesn't make it a scientific theory

To answer your question, there are many possible causes - including a different gas balance in the atmosphere pre- v post-Flood.

Hmmm who and the what now? Not a biologist here or anything but the gas balance? Why hasn't this affected all species equally? Why did a change in atmospheric pressure or "gas balance" affect only some species. More to the point what evidence do you offer that this did occur? Or how? Finally as I understand it the gas balance ratio (which gases btw?) has significant impact to the climate of the planet. One needs only to look at the impact of CFCs and the ozone layer is having on the planet to see that a moderate shift can radically effect climates, so why were only a handful of species shrunk like these.

I myself would really enjoy the "tortured logic" by which Evolutionists explain how insects have 'improved' over the last several (pick a figure, any figure) million years by becoming ever PUNIER!!!! :eek:

The adaption of cetain english butterflies to their enviroment during the industrial revolution, their wing patterns shifting to darker colours as trees where caked in mine waste byproduct is a very classic example.

Incidently staring at a dragonfly or centipede and laughing at it and saying "puny" animal (do you moonlight in the WWE?) you ought to be bigger I mock your size as proof of evolution. Evolution has taught us that smaller animals tend to do better in times of dimished resources, like small mammals during the ice age. Bigger isn't always better. That is pretty fundamental law of nature.

Are really claiming that the best and most prosperous species on the plant are the ones who are biggest?

Incidently JC and Wolfbane, here's a challenge for you, I will happily stick two fine beef steaks on the sea floor (re your claims re carrion and the survivors of the flood) if I leave them there for forty days and forty nights, or a year, your choice, and then dreg up and cook whatever remains for you in a fine pepper sauce, and you manage to eat it. I'll eat "The Origin of the Species".

robindch · 23-08-2006 9:24am

> here's a challenge for you,

ROFL

Zombrex · 23-08-2006 11:24am

J C wrote:

I would prefer to characterise the change that you have referred to above as the Lion moving from an omnivorous diet at the time of the Flood to it’s modern specialised diet including the LOSS of it’s former ability to synthesise Taurine!!! :cool:

Well I suppose that is no more ridiculous and silly than anything else you have claimed :cool:

I would love to know what you think a lion looked like 4,000 years ago when it feed in a similar fashion to a modern whale.

And Creationists wonder why they aren't taken seriously ..... :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Standard Evolutionist Question – and the equally standard Creationist answer can be found here:-

A standard Creationist answer which, in a standard Creationists fashion, doesn't answer the question ...

Firstly the description of why there were only 8,000 animal species on the Ark is complete nonsense. Anyone with leaving cert biology would know it is complete nonsense.

For a start Mr Safati (a chemist) claims that all animal species can probably interbreed and that the modern understanding of the difference in species is actually completely wrong. Therefore an animal can create a new species everytime they have sex.

It almost seems silly to have to say this, but that is absolutely nonsense. Very very closely related species such as lions and tigers can interbreed but their offspring are sterlie and very short lived, and this interbreeding hardly ever happens in the wild. It is a dead end. Any lions and tigers that tried and actually succeeded in doing this would die out.

The AiG idea (most likely based on Mr Safati watching a Discovery Channel documentary about Tigons and turning off half way through :rolleyes:) that all 2-5 million animals species could have developed from the inter speceis breeding of a handful of common "types" of animals shows a fundamental lack of understanding of even the most basic biological principles.

Which isn't surprising since Mr Safati is specialist in chemistry and his understanding of even the most simple biological subjects has been shown time and time again to be seriously lacking.

Mr Safati then, based on this common type idea, then assumes all the original mammal types were the size of sheep? Why, I've no idea? Probably because he requires this to fit them all into the Ark.

Mr Safati, quoting Woodmorappe (AiG articles actually seem to spend a great deal of time quoting and rehashing uncritically other much old Flood theory books, stating them as fact without explaining the logic or reasoning) that Noah would have used compressed fruit and concentrate food. How I'm not sure, since the methods used for such storage were going to be invented for thousands of years :rolleyes:

That whole article is just one big nonsense rant by someone who it is clear has no idea what they are talking about and seems to be not interested in even bothering to learn.

As I tried to explain to Wolfsbane AnwersInGenesis is a nonsense website. You and him should both stop reading it and go learn some proper science.

J C wrote:

Creationists claim that the incredible specified complexity repeatably observable in ALL living cells was Created by an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Yes they do, with absolutely no evidence beyond "we don't understand this" to back that claim up. I could just as easily claim that a comet from another universe fell out of a worm hole and dumped primiative life on Earth. There is as much evidence for that theory as your one about God. Would you accept that my theory is just as likely, if not more so, as your theory?

Biologists claim it happened naturally due to the right conditions on early Earth and the fundamental laws of chemistry that predict that it will happen given the correct conditions. These conditions have been modelled and low and behold self-replicating molecules (which, after all is all life basically is) formed

Abiogensis is an observable fact. It can happen. Get over it.

J C wrote:

It’s like somebody looking at a Super Computer and saying that ‘it just happened to happen’

No its like someone claiming that God made it rain in Austriala, instead of a cold front in New Zeland.

Incredible specified complexity occurs in nature, its call "the weather".

The global weather model is approximately 1,000,000,000 times more complex than the chemical reactions taking place in a human chromosone. I can model DNA reactions on my laptop, you need 100 different weather centres, each with 5 or 6 super computers running for 6 hours to model a days worth of gobal weather to high resolution. And high resolution is not even that high, and they still get it wrong.

Yet it all still "works" (though knowing you you will probably claim that is because God designed it prefectly :rolleyes:)

And about 2000 years ago we had no idea how weather worked either, so people like yourself claimed it was down to the gods, because they couldn't understand how it could work using natural processess. So when it rained, it wasn't due to a high pressure area cooling or hitting a low pressure area, it was due to their God's will. When lightning struck it wasn't due to an electrical charge building up in the upper atmosphere due to rain particles, it was because their God was angry.

Humans have a natural instinct to run to their gods when they encounter something they don't fully (or even partially) understand. We have always done it, so I suppose it is silly to expect that people, even in this day and age, would no longer do it.

J C wrote:

Yes, abandoned by SOME in favour of Lamarkian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of neo-Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Punctuated Equilibrium, etc., etc.:D

That my friend is called progress ...

J C wrote:

And eventually SOME of these various EVOLUTIONISTS became Creationists!! :cool:

You keep claiming that, but any EVOLUTIONISTS that you calim converted to Creationism actually turn out to have been Creationists all along.

Zombrex · 23-08-2006 11:33am

Diogenes wrote:

Incidently JC and Wolfbane, here's a challenge for you, I will happily stick two fine beef steaks on the sea floor (re your claims re carrion and the survivors of the flood) if I leave them there for forty days and forty nights, or a year, your choice, and then dreg up and cook whatever remains for you in a fine pepper sauce, and you manage to eat it. I'll eat "The Origin of the Species".

LOL, brillant.

I will also eat a copy of "The Origin of the Species" if both JC and Wolfbane eat a steak that has been sitting under the ocean for 190 days and then cooked.

Asiaprod · 23-08-2006 11:48am

Wicknight wrote:

LOL, brillant.

I will also eat a copy of "The Origin of the Species" if both JC and Wolfbane eat a steak that has been sitting under the ocean for 190 days and then cooked.

Yes, I would have to also come on board for this, but I will up the anti. I will eat the Hardback version, including that little stringy thing they use to mark the pages. (Hey, I eat the wife's Japanese cooking so the The Origin of the Species is a piece of cake). and I think Robindch should too:D

Zombrex · 23-08-2006 11:56am

J C wrote:

You forget that Creation Science accepts that significant DEGENERATION has occurred since the Fall.

While also accepting that this DEGENERATION has accounted for the trillions of specific environmental abilities found in all modern animals.

After all, you claim that only 8,000 species came off the Ark. There are now 2-5 million

So through the DEGENRATION (ie weaking, becoming "punnier") 8,000 animal species manged to adapt into 2 million, most of which are stronger and better adapted to their environment.

And now the kicker.

How do you explain the increase in chromosome size between these species (modern horses have larger chromosomes compared to the older species such as donkys and zebra families)? We know Zebras existed before are at least soon after the flood, they are in rock carvings from primiate peoples (the stripe is a give away). We know that Zebra sub-speceis range in chromosome size from 38 to 62, with the rock carvings showing sub-species with the lower level chromosomes.

So it could be argued that they were the horse "type" that was taken onto the ark. But modern day race horses contain nearly 20 more chromosones than the accient zebra's shown in the cave drawings.

If all animals are degenrating since the flood (or the fall), why are some animals getting bigger in physical size as well as increasing their chromosome size compared to other old animals in the same "type"?

If modern day zebras decended from the Flood Zebra which contained a much higher number of chromosomes, why do they look the very same after lossing nearly 1/3 of their genetic structure, while modern day horses look very different from both modern day zebra and flood zebra but after not lossing as nearly as much genetic material?

How can the chromosome count be growing if only genetic loss can take place? And how can two animals be mating together to create a new species if they do not have similar chromosomes. Why does the common "type" anncestor of modern horses and donkeys and zebras look like a modern day zebra but contain huge amounts more genetic information, while looking nothing like modern day horses that contain similar genetic information quantities?

This isn't just horses, this pattern if found all over the animal spectrum. The chromosomes don't support your theory or time line. For it to be true massive genetic loss would have to be taking place, as well as massive genetic increase, which you claim is impossible.

The only theory that fits is that of evolution, where genetic information can decrease and increase equally but it takes a long time (modern horses evolved approx 1 million years ago). The evidence simply does not fit your theory.

Face facts JC, your theory on degeneration since the flood doesn't stand up. It is nonsense, complete and utter biological nonsense.

Though knowing Creationists you are probably well a work thinking up another wacking idea to try and fit this into your religous dogma. "God did it" is always a good one. Maybe you will claim the rock drawnings were of a completely different Zebra sub-species, one with chromosome count as high (higher) than modern horses (but which look exactly like the 44 chromosome zebras ... funny that). Maybe you will simply claim the rock drawings are fake.

Doesn't really matter I suppose, I know you will not accept this. Any nonsense "explination" you come up with to explain way the serious logical errors in your theory will by more acceptable to you than reason because they will allow you to still work within the framework that your holy book cannot be wrong.

For all the hoo-rah Creationists make about science being inflexable (wolfbane even claims that they surpress knowledge) Creationists still find it hard to accept the fact that their beliefs are, by definition, of the most inflexable type. Creation Science is completely rigid, completely inflexable in every aspect. It can't really call itself a science, because it refused to accept that possibility of falsafiability, which means it doesn't use the scientific method. It is a branch of religion, not science.

BTW, when you get around to it, please list the 8,000 universal "types" that Noah brought onto the Ark, and what modern species developed from these types. I mean, you know there were 8,000 types, so I assume you know what these were.

In fact, forget that, just list a handful and what modern day animals species evolved ... sorry ... specalised from them. It should be fun to use the chromosome count on this list and see what nonsense Creationists are using today

Jimoslimos · 23-08-2006 12:36pm

J C wrote:

Yes, abandoned by SOME in favour of Lamarkian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of neo-Darwinian Evolution which was abandoned by SOME in favour of Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.,

Just because Classical Darwinism has been replaced by different variants of the theory doesn't make it wrong. Given the advances in technology it is pretty obvious that the original theory would 'evolve' (dirty word I know;) ) to encompass factors that Darwin either missed or was unable to know about at the time (DNA sequencing, etc.,). Anyway if you even bothered to study it you'd see that the main differences tend to lie in what factors drove evolution and whether these resulted in eras of increased evolution (i.e. evolution IS the underying theory behind all of them)

pH · 23-08-2006 12:42pm

Just to clarify at this point:
J C is now accepting Speciation though only as it happens in his new 'Theory of Devolution', whereby new species can be formed by a divinely created species losing some of their 'genetic information'?

This type of speciation obviously covers macro-evolution.

J C, have you (or any other creationist) built any form of devolutionary tree. Have you identified which creatures are the divinely created ones and which devolved from them over the last 4,000 years.

I must say I'm skeptical that 8,000 or so species can devolve in to millions in such a short time, but I guess as all this is scientific there must be some testable evidence to back up your theory.

23-08-2006 8:27pm

I know nothing about natural sciences - Leaving Cert Bio is as far as I got.

I have a question however (one that is probably wrong on a dozen counts but hey, this is a public forum!)

If evolution is wrong - then what is the deal with Virus mutations? These (apparently) evolve very rapdily with new strains of an old virus occuring.

How do creationists explain this?

J C · 23-08-2006 9:29pm

Scofflaw
All the examples you have offered of "evolutionists who became creationists" have been untrue - every single one of them was a creationist before they did science. Every. Single. One. Do you understand? Every. Single. One. Was. Already. A. Creationist.

Not so!!

I was an Evolutionist myself – and here are the biographies of a few others:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0622catchpoole.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/caving.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/standish.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/white.asp

And here is somebody who started life in a Christian family, became an evolutionist and THEN became a Creationist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/cimbala.asp

Wicknight
Incredible specified complexity occurs in nature, its call "the weather".

The complexity of weather is indeed great – however, unlike life, it is UNSPECIFIED!! :eek:

Diogenes
Not a biologist here or anything but the gas balance? Why hasn't this affected all species equally? Why did a change in atmospheric pressure or "gas balance" affect only some species.

Maximum insect size is currently limited by oxygen availability due to the passive nature of the insect respiration process.

Large fossilised insects are therefore strong prima face evidence of significantly higher atmospheric oxygen levels in the past. :cool:

Diogenes
The adaption of cetain english butterflies to their enviroment during the industrial revolution, their wing patterns shifting to darker colours as trees where caked in mine waste byproduct is a very classic example.

They were Moths – and the story of Industrial Moth Melanism is completely debunked here:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp
and here
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted3.php which concludes that :-

“The collapse of the myth of Industrial (Moth) Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:
'My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.'

Diogenes
smaller animals tend to do better in times of dimished resources, like small mammals during the ice age. Bigger isn't always better. That is pretty fundamental law of nature.

I agree – and that is another reason why SMALLER creatures predominated after the Flood!! :cool:

However, if there wasn’t a worldwide Flood and therefore no widespread adversity – then WHY did the large fossilised insects die off?

Diogenes
Incidently JC and Wolfbane, here's a challenge for you, I will happily stick two fine beef steaks on the sea floor (re your claims re carrion and the survivors of the flood) if I leave them there for forty days and forty nights, or a year, your choice, and then dreg up and cook whatever remains for you in a fine pepper sauce, and you manage to eat it. I'll eat "The Origin of the Species".

Don’t waste your beef steaks on the Sharks and Darwin's works on yourself!!!:D

If you want to simulate ‘Flood Kill’ you would have to pile up thousands of dead cattle in one place – which would provide a feed source for carnivores and vermin (as well as creating a serious environmental hazard) for a long time.

….and before you claim that Lions are ‘choosey’ about their feed – let me remind you that Lions regularly ‘tuck into’ a main course of ‘Zebra intestine with faeces on the side’ – without as much as a sniff or a belch!!:eek:

J C · 23-08-2006 9:53pm

original_psycho wrote:

I know nothing about natural sciences - Leaving Cert Bio is as far as I got.

I have a question however (one that is probably wrong on a dozen counts but hey, this is a public forum!)

If evolution is wrong - then what is the deal with Virus mutations? These (apparently) evolve very rapdily with new strains of an old virus occuring.

How do creationists explain this?

Good explanation here in relation to virus dynamics at:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/aids.asp

…….and bacteria are dealt with here at:-
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted3.php which concludes with the words of Dr. Pierre-Paul Grassé University of Paris and past-President of the French Acadamie des Sciences that :-

“Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.“

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings (including bacteria) to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.

wolfsbane · 23-08-2006 10:37pm

robindch said:

And, again (!!!), I ask you to name scientists who are in this "scientific establishment elite". But you won't because you can't because there is no such thing. Science does not operate with central control. There is no "science" version of AiG out there instructing people what to believe, no matter how much you would like there to be one.

Sorry, I thought you asked for scientists who gassed women and kids. I did give a name or two. But if you merely want me to name the scientific elite, no problem: For example, the Evolution Wars Show No Sign of Abating article shows that top officials from seven major science organizations, including the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics, are in this body. I'll leave it to you to get the individual details.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-8/p24.html

Again, the prestigious international body who issued the recent statement on evolution - we discussed it here. Everyone of those who formulate such defences of evolution and present them as the indisputable truth, they are part of the elite. Check out the membership details for yourself.

Check out this for more on the elitist operation: Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview by Jerry Bergman http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp

And who are the "masses" who believe? Virtually nobody except professional biologists read the biology journals, so who on earth is having information "gagged"? The people who read and publish are the same folks!

The scientific community are not all controllers of academia. The mass of them are being guided in their thinking by the elite. The real masses who count, however, are the ones whose minds are required to swallow the 'truth', are the ordinary, non-scientific masses. They must be reassured that evolution is fact. They must not be exposed to the idea that bona fide scientists question or reject it.

It's interesting you should say this, as it's quite a climb down from you recent comments comparing the habits of working biologists to those of the Nazis. This is good.

Again, a misrepresentation. Only the elite were accused of Nazi-like tactics. But many of the rest of you seem happy enough with it, so some guilt lies with you too.

Why do you say it does not happen when (honorary) Dr Ham -- far from pretending he doesn't suppress or distort information -- actually proudly boasts that this exactly what happens in his organization:..
And, btw, this isn't an optional thing. If you want to work at AiG, you have to sign this document which explicitly tells you to discard anything that doesn't agree with you. Isn't Ham doing *exactly* what you criticize the non-existent "scientific establishment elite" for doing?

His organization is a religious one, not a scientific body. Religious bodies have religious standards. They do not permit the fundamental beliefs of their body to be questioned. If one disagrees, one can start a new body oneself.

And I dispute your accusation of distortion.

So unless you contend that science deals with this sort of belief, then your comment is pointless. Science is about facts and theories, etc. AiG uses scientific argument to show the Bible is not at varience with science. But it makes it clear that it is a religious body.

That is my objection - religious dogma controlling the scientific arena. It is not Creationism that is suppressing scientific views, but evolutionism, a sub-set of the sect of scientism, of the religion materialistic atheism. I would be just as opposed to Creation Science suppressing arguments for evolution, if they were in the driving seat.

Scofflaw · 23-08-2006 11:35pm

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch said:

Sorry, I thought you asked for scientists who gassed women and kids. I did give a name or two. But if you merely want me to name the scientific elite, no problem: For example, the Evolution Wars Show No Sign of Abating article shows that top officials from seven major science organizations, including the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics, are in this body. I'll leave it to you to get the individual details.
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-8/p24.html

Again, the prestigious international body who issued the recent statement on evolution - we discussed it here. Everyone of those who formulate such defences of evolution and present them as the indisputable truth, they are part of the elite. Check out the membership details for yourself.

Check out this for more on the elitist operation: Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview by Jerry Bergman http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp

The scientific community are not all controllers of academia. The mass of them are being guided in their thinking by the elite. The real masses who count, however, are the ones whose minds are required to swallow the 'truth', are the ordinary, non-scientific masses. They must be reassured that evolution is fact. They must not be exposed to the idea that bona fide scientists question or reject it.

Again, a misrepresentation. Only the elite were accused of Nazi-like tactics. But many of the rest of you seem happy enough with it, so some guilt lies with you too.

His organization is a religious one, not a scientific body. Religious bodies have religious standards. They do not permit the fundamental beliefs of their body to be questioned. If one disagrees, one can start a new body oneself.

And I dispute your accusation of distortion.

So unless you contend that science deals with this sort of belief, then your comment is pointless. Science is about facts and theories, etc. AiG uses scientific argument to show the Bible is not at varience with science. But it makes it clear that it is a religious body.

That is my objection - religious dogma controlling the scientific arena. It is not Creationism that is suppressing scientific views, but evolutionism, a sub-set of the sect of scientism, of the religion materialistic atheism. I would be just as opposed to Creation Science suppressing arguments for evolution, if they were in the driving seat.

Rubbish. For your elite to mean anything, they would need to dictate to the rest of us - and frankly, most of us don't give a toss what these august bodies think.

In science, being at the top of the tree just means you're almost certainly out of date. Rocking the boat is what makes your reputation - not kowtowing to elder lemons.

You're putting forward a conspiracy theory, dressed up with pseudo-Nazi terminology, and all it shows is that you know nothing about how science operates - heck, you don't even read the scientific literature.

Really, wolfsbane, you're talking out your arse. I took you for more intelligent than that.

Scofflaw

Zombrex · 24-08-2006 12:07am

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Incredible specified complexity occurs in nature, its call "the weather".

The complexity of weather is indeed great – however, unlike life, it is UNSPECIFIED!! :eek:

So is life unless you assign intelligence. Life is just one big chemical reaction, just like weather is just one big physical reaction.

But like the accient people of Earth who assigned meaning and purpose to the weather because they didn't understand it properly, you too assign meaning and purpose to the chemical reactions that is life, because you too do not understand it properly

Diogenes · 24-08-2006 12:07am

Diogenes
Not a biologist here or anything but the gas balance? Why hasn't this affected all species equally? Why did a change in atmospheric pressure or "gas balance" affect only some species.

Maximum insect size is currently limited by oxygen availability due to the passive nature of the insect respiration process.

But that doesnt make a wit of sense, while I don't doubt the oxygen levels differed at different times of our planets several million year existance to suggest that the oxygen level was significantly different 4004 years ago and only a handful of species showed radically difference doesnt make a wit of sense

Large fossilised insects are therefore strong prima face evidence of significantly higher atmospheric oxygen levels in the past. :cool:

While I don't doubt they were it isnt prima face evidence that there was a radical difference in oxygen levels six thousand years ago :cool:

Diogenes
The adaption of cetain english butterflies to their enviroment during the industrial revolution, their wing patterns shifting to darker colours as trees where caked in mine waste byproduct is a very classic example.

“The collapse of the myth of Industrial (Moth) Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:
'My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.'

A simple half remembered recolection from a primary school textbook does not debunk the entire theory of evolution.

I agree – and that is another reason why SMALLER creatures predominated after the Flood!! :cool:

However, if there wasn’t a worldwide Flood and therefore no widespread adversity – then WHY did the large fossilised insects die off?

There have been minor and major cataylsm in our planets history just one is offering a credible explanation for one involving a tardis like ark.

If you want to simulate ‘Flood Kill’ you would have to pile up thousands of dead cattle in one place – which would provide a feed source for carnivores and vermin (as well as creating a serious environmental hazard) for a long time.

So animals and disease and bacteria don't spread fasters among groups of corpses. Blimey explain the black death then. In fact explain anything about this, you admit that the mountains of caresses would be lethal to anything going near them but suggest entire species dined out on them for weeks?

….and before you claim that Lions are ‘choosey’ about their feed – let me remind you that Lions regularly ‘tuck into’ a main course of ‘Zebra intestine with faeces on the side’ – without as much as a sniff or a belch!!:eek:

A man who relies on smiles as much as you is obviously unhinged.

Zombrex · 24-08-2006 12:14am

wolfsbane wrote:

Everyone of those who formulate such defences of evolution and present them as the indisputable truth, they are part of the elite.

Groan ...

it is a fundamental element of the scientific method that a theory, any theory, must be falsafiable. This is accepted by every proper scientist in the world, and the main reason Creation "Science" isn't actually a science at all (CS does not accept the Bible can be wrong). "Indisputable truth" doesn't exist in science. It exists all over the place in Creation Science.

Again what you are unhappy about is not the scientific community surpressing science, it is the scientific community refusing to accept into science a movement that is at is fundamental core unscientific and anti-science

The very false claim you level at the scientific community, that they preach indisputable truth not only shows your fundamental lack of understand of what science is, but it is the very reason the scientific community refuse to accept Creation Science, because Creation Science refuses to accept the corner stone of scientific enquire, that of falsafibiliy of a theory.

Creation Science isn't science. That is why proper scientists don't want anything to do with it and why they want the movement to stay as far away from a science class room as possible. Creation Science is the science taught in the middle ages, where conjecture and assumption are the cornerstone of the science, not logic and evidence.

If you don't believe me just answer this question - Name one Creation Science theory based on the Bible that is falsafiable, ie that it is accepted might be wrong. Genesis? Can that be wrong? Noah's flood? Can that be wrong? The tower of Babel? Can that be wrong? Is there any element of the Bible that can be wrong?

robindch · 24-08-2006 12:16am

> But like the ancient people of Earth who assigned meaning and purpose
> to the weather because they didn't understand it properly, you too
> assign meaning and purpose to the chemical reactions that is life,
> because you too do not understand it properly.

That's a good and clear way of putting this thought -- thanks.

Zombrex · 24-08-2006 12:32am

wolfsbane wrote:

I would be just as opposed to Creation Science suppressing arguments for evolution, if they were in the driving seat.

AiG have been shown to knowingly lie about evidence and evolution, as has been pointed out a number of times on this forum.

For a start they continue to circulate the myth that genetic increase due to mutation has never been observed, despite the fact that a number of independent experiements, over the last 8 years, have observed just that.

At least the scientific community polices itself. There are too many scientists with rivalries with each other for mistakes and fabrications to rest for too long. Eventually they are found out.

Who polices the Creation Science community? Any fraud or even honest mistakes that Creation Scientists have made have been discovered by the proper scientific community. And even after these mistakes or frauds are discovered this discovery is still largely ignored by the Creation Scientist movement. AiG still publishes conclusions made on hoax information, despite the fact that the hoax has long been known (as demonstrated by the fact that AiG removed references to it, yet kept the conclusions it made), as I have already explained on this forum.

It is the hight of hypocracy to challage the scientific community with suppression of the truth while still using AnswersInGenesis as a source material for nearly all your posts Wolfsbane.

If any of the evolutionary posters here used a reference to a evolution website that had knowing misrepresented the truth you can bet that you and JC would never accept any reference to that publication ever again, even from different editors or columnists.

Yet post after post after post the only website you ever seem to reference is AnswersInGenesis.

Scofflaw · 24-08-2006 12:45am

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
All the examples you have offered of "evolutionists who became creationists" have been untrue - every single one of them was a creationist before they did science. Every. Single. One. Do you understand? Every. Single. One. Was. Already. A. Creationist.

Not so!!

I was an Evolutionist myself – and here are the biographies of a few others:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0622catchpoole.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/caving.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/standish.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/white.asp

And here is somebody who started life in a Christian family, became an evolutionist and THEN became a Creationist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/cimbala.asp

Well done - you have managed to finally dig some up, after all your previous false starts.Clearly it's worth challenging you from time to time.

As to your own claim to have been an evolutionist - it's clear you don't have a boggy-eyed notion of evolution, so I'm afraid we'll have to count you out.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Incredible specified complexity occurs in nature, its call "the weather".

The complexity of weather is indeed great – however, unlike life, it is UNSPECIFIED!! :eek:

So, then, what does "specified" mean - this is still not explained, although you clearly feel it applies to life, not weather.

J C wrote:

Diogenes
Not a biologist here or anything but the gas balance? Why hasn't this affected all species equally? Why did a change in atmospheric pressure or "gas balance" affect only some species.

Maximum insect size is currently limited by oxygen availability due to the passive nature of the insect respiration process.

Large fossilised insects are therefore strong prima face evidence of significantly higher atmospheric oxygen levels in the past. :cool:

This is the case, at least in the standard scientific view - although JC has it slightly backwards. Oxygen levels in the Palaeozoic (300MYa - 150MYa) are thought to have been up to 35%, as opposed to the modern 21%, and this is thought to have allowed larger insects, although this is only at the hypothesis stage at the moment.

However, in the standard scientific view, neither this, nor the precipitate drop to 15% oxygen 150MYa, would have impacted humanity. In the Creationist worldview, humanity would have had to adapt to both these conditions, and then adapt back again, without benefit of mutations.

J C wrote:

Diogenes
The adaption of cetain english butterflies to their enviroment during the industrial revolution, their wing patterns shifting to darker colours as trees where caked in mine waste byproduct is a very classic example.

They were Moths – and the story of Industrial Moth Melanism is completely debunked here:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp
and here
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted3.php which concludes that :-

“The collapse of the myth of Industrial (Moth) Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:
'My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.'

Except that your claimed "debunking" is also rubbish. The original hypothesis, that the moth colour was the single factor influencing predation, has been overturned. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote, "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors."

The Pepper Moth remains an excellent example of selection in action - I'm afraid the YEC "debunking" is, as so often, based on a partial and biased reading of the science. Like wolfsbane, you are letting AiG do your "thinking" for you.

J C wrote:

Diogenes
smaller animals tend to do better in times of dimished resources, like small mammals during the ice age. Bigger isn't always better. That is pretty fundamental law of nature.

I agree – and that is another reason why SMALLER creatures predominated after the Flood!! :cool:

However, if there wasn’t a worldwide Flood and therefore no widespread adversity – then WHY did the large fossilised insects die off?

See above re. oxygen levels.

J C wrote:

Diogenes
Incidently JC and Wolfbane, here's a challenge for you, I will happily stick two fine beef steaks on the sea floor (re your claims re carrion and the survivors of the flood) if I leave them there for forty days and forty nights, or a year, your choice, and then dreg up and cook whatever remains for you in a fine pepper sauce, and you manage to eat it. I'll eat "The Origin of the Species".

Don’t waste your beef steaks on the Sharks and Darwin's works on yourself!!!:D

If you want to simulate ‘Flood Kill’ you would have to pile up thousands of dead cattle in one place – which would provide a feed source for carnivores and vermin (as well as creating a serious environmental hazard) for a long time.

….and before you claim that Lions are ‘choosey’ about their feed – let me remind you that Lions regularly ‘tuck into’ a main course of ‘Zebra intestine with faeces on the side’ – without as much as a sniff or a belch!!:eek:

Hmm. Even carrion eaters balk at carrion over a couple of weeks old, let alone 10 years - there are no nutrients left in older corpses. In addition, your neat idea of huge heaps of carrion has no backing either biblically or in the fossil record. Such things would be easily visible as large deposits of gnawed bones, and, sorry to say, they're not there...

deriding your scientific credentials,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 24-08-2006 1:04am

J C wrote:

….and before you claim that Lions are ‘choosey’ about their feed – let me remind you that Lions regularly ‘tuck into’ a main course of ‘Zebra intestine with faeces on the side’ – without as much as a sniff or a belch!!:eek:

Are you actually serious ....

JC sometimes I wonder if you are just a big troll, because I find it nearly impossible to believe someone is this ignorant

You are seriously proposing human eating standards to lions. While ignoring that fact that humans eat intestines all the time, so why you think lions doing so means they will eat anything I've no idea.

Lions eat meat that is fresh. Meat that has been at the bottom of the ocean for nearly a year is not, under any definition of the word, fresh.

Why can't you accept that your explination of how the post-flood animals survived is not only wrong but ignorant and ridiculous

Scofflaw · 24-08-2006 1:35am

Wicknight wrote:

Are you actually serious ....

JC sometimes I wonder if you are just a big troll, because I find it nearly impossible to believe someone is this ignorant.

I have to admit that I've had the same thought. It does seem unbelievable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion · 24-08-2006 5:20am

I don't contribute to this thread much because I don't want to be mean, but seriously J C...

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments