Noah, One Continent and about a Billion Years Too Short
-
I think he looked a lot like me. :laugh: Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
LOL! OK - I'll pay that one :-D cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
I think he looked a lot like me. :laugh: Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
I'm confused ! (no comment Christian, please) 1) Seems to offer the possibility of a local or global flood; 4) Seems to be suggesting a global flood; 6) Seems to infer either a global flood (affected everybody, no matter where they lived) or a local flood (the story spread when the survivors spread). You seem to have missed the obvious conclusion here - that perhaps there have been floods in South America, China and North America sometime in the past several million years (or 4,000 years, if you are a true Creationist). And your conclusion offers : Finally, there are a lot of answers that I don't have (i.e. where did the water come from and where did it go?) but I am willing to accept that something did happen to it because I trust in the Word of God. So, you aren't sure if it was local or global and you can't explain how it happened? Yet you're sure it did, in some form, because the bible sort of says something about it (minus lots of the details). I think I'll pass on that as much of an explanation - and it doesn't sound like you have much to offer beyond "the biblical flood must have happened, because the bible says so". Thanks for that enlightening contribution... ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Of course, that's exactly how much conclusion the evolutionists offer. "Here we know that life started millions of years ago, but we have no idea how, we have absolutely no proof of evolution, but here are a series of illustrations on hypothetical forms that we think should exist, but don't. And trust us because we're 'scientists'" There is no evidence that prefers your view over the world over ours. You haven't offered anything. Your scientists haven't offered anything. Because there is nothing but the stories concocted by people who don't like the idea that there is a God demanding certain things from us. As far as whether I think there is a global flood. I believe that the flood was global. I was answering the question that there are those who think that the flood was local. I personally do not believe that. I am sure that the flood was local. No I don't know where the water went. Do you know the process by which organic amino acids begin to self-replicate? If not then I guess by your reasoning you can't offer anything meaningful to this discussion either. Or, we can continue a civilized debate about that which we do know. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are disciples, if you love one another -- JOhn 13:34-45"
-
No John, not really. The only way in which these clear, proven and sensible facts can turn out to be 'theories' that are 'base dupon assumptions' is if you completely overturn the entire bodies of scientific knowledge known as Geology, Biology, Astronomy, etc (I won't bother to list the endless stream of scientific disciplines that easily and conclusively prove the world is more thatn 6000 years old, and that many man made structures and artifacts (from stome tablets to tools) predate the biblical timetable by many thousands of years). Of course, this is precisely what Creationists do - ignore the overwhemling body of facts in favor of a lazy, disjointed collection of wild theories (the Ark actially held 16,000 different species of animal, for example - please!!), often supported by any pereieved 'hole' that can be found in existing knowledge. There is one true, clear , unarguable difference between science and Creationism. Creationism says the underlying fact is already known, and is unchangeable - that is, god created the worlds according to the biblical stories. This is the 'theory' that the facts need to support. So we continually look for facts that support this theory, and we ignore, twist and challenge continuous and evidence that is in contradiction to this theoyr. In Creationism, the 'theory' cannot be changed, it is the facts that must be forced to fit the theory. Science operates at both ends. For exmaple, we come up with the theory of evolution, based upon the evidence we have gathered. As we gather more evidence we flesh out the theory. If the evidence continues to support the theory, it matures. If substantial evidence is found that contradicts or breaks the theory, then we begin a process of (a) gathering more evidence, (b) re-examining the conflicting evidence to see if perhaps there has been an error in interpretation or gathering methods and (c) re-examine the theory to see how it might be modified to incorporate these new facts. This is science - let the evidence take you where it will (while also remembering to check and recheck the evidence to ensure it's integrity). The 'end point' of science is unknown - it flows in whichever direction the evidence leads. Creationism is anti-science. The end is already known, and it's a matter of trying to force all known facts to fit this all encompassing and invariant theory of creation. I can't even begin to post 'anti-creationist' links, since virtually the entire body of modern science contains fundamental contradictions to th
You have a basic set of assumptions that never change as well. Where is the evidence that the world is as old as you say? Are you talking about radiometric dating? If so, then please tell me your assumptions that you use to calibrate the measurements. Do you know the starting conditions of the samples you use? Or do you assume a starting condition and the work forward? Since there is no way to know the starting condition, it pretty obvious that any calculations are biased by the expectations of the observers. Are you talking about the Doppler Red Shift of 'distant' galaxies? Well then please tell me about your assumptions there. Are you assuming that we know absolutely that the red shift is only caused by velocity? There is at least a possibility that the red shift can occur through the loss of energy as light propogates. We don't have a lab that can bounce a light beam of known energy more that an light year to take accurate measurements so we don't know. Also, since Creationists don't throw out general relativity it is perfectly reasonable to assume that portions of the galaxy can be much 'older' than the earth and still count creation in six literal days. Are you talking about the fossil record? Because the fossil record is a jumbled wreck of parts with no context. Men have taken pieces of bone, very rarely is a full skeleton found, and then place them with other bones based upon similarities. Not to mention that there is rapant fraud, as was just recently shown when a museum in england was cleaning some fossils, many of the bones were fake, and one of the model skeletons was constructed from several different animals. Evolutionary science may alter its details, after all, when you're making stuff up, things change. However, you obviously have two bedrock assumptions that you refuse to offer up to examination. 1) That there is no God. 2) That the universe is millions of years old. So as I said earlier. This is an argument of assumptions, and you have offered nothing that would make me choose your assumptions over mine. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are disciples, if you love one another -- JOhn 13:34-45"
-
The reason mutations are "bad" is not because them merely make a change, but because they result in a loss of genetic information. Since genes are an informational structure, it works the same was as words in these posts. If I were to type, "Chris Maunder is an intrysting guy." You would know right away that the "mutated" word was wrong and needed to be fixed. Sorry - I don't agree. The simple case is that we start with a typical human today. Let's say they have an offspring with slightly stronger knees, or the ability to run a little faster than average. This is a mutation, and an improvement. Regardless of whether or not we were perfect, we certainly no longer are, so there is a lot of room for good mutations to pop up. So anyway - describe this original 'perfect human'. Was he black, white, asian, tall... cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Chris, even in evolutionary thought. The bad mutations outweigh the good in terms of number. Which is why the long time spans are necessary for good mutations to accumulate. What you are talking about, a better knee, a stronger back, etc. Creationists do not argue. Natural selection and adaptation exists and operate pretty much as you have been told. What we disagree with, and what there is no evidence for, is any 'mutation' that conveys new genetic information rather than selecting among pre-existing information in the genetic code. That is, a mutation that changes a rat into a dog. This addition of information is required for evolution, rather than adaptation, and there are no examples for it. That's one area where evolutionists are deceptive about creationists. They point to things like adapting moths, and finches, and stronger men and say look 'evolution.' But that is not what creationists object to, so they claim victory when we don't try to argue that point. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are disciples, if you love one another -- JOhn 13:34-45"
-
The reason mutations are "bad" is not because them merely make a change, but because they result in a loss of genetic information. Since genes are an informational structure, it works the same was as words in these posts. If I were to type, "Chris Maunder is an intrysting guy." You would know right away that the "mutated" word was wrong and needed to be fixed. Sorry - I don't agree. The simple case is that we start with a typical human today. Let's say they have an offspring with slightly stronger knees, or the ability to run a little faster than average. This is a mutation, and an improvement. Regardless of whether or not we were perfect, we certainly no longer are, so there is a lot of room for good mutations to pop up. So anyway - describe this original 'perfect human'. Was he black, white, asian, tall... cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I'm not getting any email notifications when a reply is posted. *wonders what you're working on now...* :) Sorry - I don't agree. About which part? That genes are informational and similar in concept to language? I know that a lot of people like the idea that mutations can be good, but scientists have struggled with how in the world that could result in evolution even were it true. Aside from the popular books where evolutionists teach what they'd like to be convinced of, the technical papers and less obvious evolutionist documents sometimes/often? contemplate the problems with relying on mutations and a basis for macro evolution. Your example sounds like something I would enjoy, but there is no case where anyone has seen this sort of thing happening. Anyway, had that happened, it would be explained also by the idea that the genes for that "improved" descendent were already in the parents and simply combined in a way to produce a slightly faster child. It doesn't mean new information was added. So anyway - describe this original 'perfect human'. Was he black, white, asian, tall... Well, I'd like to say that I know, but I only have some good ideas. Our best guesses come from studying the arrangment of genes. Since the combination of Adam and Eve's original genes are responsible for the variation we have now, and we know that certain genes are dominant, we can make some good guesses. They were probably taller, with medium-brown skin, quite athletic, and I personally haven't got a clue about the facial features. (But I wouldn't be surprised if Adam had a lighter skin color than Eve, or anything like that.) John
-
Chris, even in evolutionary thought. The bad mutations outweigh the good in terms of number. Which is why the long time spans are necessary for good mutations to accumulate. What you are talking about, a better knee, a stronger back, etc. Creationists do not argue. Natural selection and adaptation exists and operate pretty much as you have been told. What we disagree with, and what there is no evidence for, is any 'mutation' that conveys new genetic information rather than selecting among pre-existing information in the genetic code. That is, a mutation that changes a rat into a dog. This addition of information is required for evolution, rather than adaptation, and there are no examples for it. That's one area where evolutionists are deceptive about creationists. They point to things like adapting moths, and finches, and stronger men and say look 'evolution.' But that is not what creationists object to, so they claim victory when we don't try to argue that point. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are disciples, if you love one another -- JOhn 13:34-45"
What we disagree with, and what there is no evidence for, is any 'mutation' that conveys new genetic information rather than selecting among pre-existing information in the genetic code. That is, a mutation that changes a rat into a dog. This addition of information is required for evolution, rather than adaptation, and there are no examples for it. So changes in DNA caused by radiation or other environmental influences don't count as new information? (and when you say 'new', I assume you simply mean 'a change that would make something different - for good or bad') Most of life is really, REALLY similar. The differences between a pig and a human are IIRC less than 1-2%. It's taken billions of years to come from the swamp and end up as we are, but even then the changes are so incredibly tiny that it shows that the changes needed to turn a rat into a dog are not big at all, and that evolution is an incredibly slow process. Changes in DNA do happen. DNA changes can propogate to offspring. I think the problem here is that there seems to be an invisible line between a few changes in DNA and enough changes to produce two very different looking creatures. If you agree that DNA can change, then why can't it be possible for these changes to build up over a million generations to end up with two divergent creatures? cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I'm not getting any email notifications when a reply is posted. *wonders what you're working on now...* :) Sorry - I don't agree. About which part? That genes are informational and similar in concept to language? I know that a lot of people like the idea that mutations can be good, but scientists have struggled with how in the world that could result in evolution even were it true. Aside from the popular books where evolutionists teach what they'd like to be convinced of, the technical papers and less obvious evolutionist documents sometimes/often? contemplate the problems with relying on mutations and a basis for macro evolution. Your example sounds like something I would enjoy, but there is no case where anyone has seen this sort of thing happening. Anyway, had that happened, it would be explained also by the idea that the genes for that "improved" descendent were already in the parents and simply combined in a way to produce a slightly faster child. It doesn't mean new information was added. So anyway - describe this original 'perfect human'. Was he black, white, asian, tall... Well, I'd like to say that I know, but I only have some good ideas. Our best guesses come from studying the arrangment of genes. Since the combination of Adam and Eve's original genes are responsible for the variation we have now, and we know that certain genes are dominant, we can make some good guesses. They were probably taller, with medium-brown skin, quite athletic, and I personally haven't got a clue about the facial features. (But I wouldn't be surprised if Adam had a lighter skin color than Eve, or anything like that.) John
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I'm not getting any email notifications when a reply is posted. *wonders what you're working on now...* Dang. That's the second complaint I've had about that. I'm getting bombarded with email notifications so I'm a little puzzled as to why it's been hit and miss with some. Maybe it's time to pull out the 'it must be something your end' cop-out card ;) the technical papers and less obvious evolutionist documents sometimes/often? contemplate the problems with relying on mutations and a basis for macro evolution. Which maybe explains why there is also the thought that evolution works in sudden jumps and starts, instead of being a smooth transition. It doesn't mean new information was added. Hmm. So, given two creatures, what is the cutoff that defines them as the same, or them as two different species. Everyone's DNA is different (hence DNA profiling) yet we are all so incredibly close too. As are pigs. So if pigs and humans are different (by 2% or less) but you and I are different (by something greater than 0%) what is the magic number? Actually this brings up a number of questions of which I don't have the vaguest idea: what exactly are the differences, genetically, between a pig and a human, and what are the differences between an eskimo and a zulu tribesman? cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
John, The evolutionary viewpoint and Bible/Creation viewpoint use completely different series of assumptions and supporting arguments Yes, I agree almost completely - the one point of difference (and it is THE crucial point) is that the non-creationist world view seeks to find a theory that contains the evidence. As evidence is discovered, detailed, examined and reviewed, the theories of the world are adapted and refined. On the other hand, Creationist theories use scientific methods and processes up to the point at which they fail, then we simply insert 'god made it so' to resolve whatever contradiction we have encountered, then we go back to using basically scientific methods again. This give creationism a veneer of respectability, and allows many people to largely resolve the conflicts of science and creationism in their own minds. However, it does NOT address the fact that creationism (specifically "Young Earth Creatinism") uses science only so far, and has no problem abandoning it when it wants to. On the other hand, science does not have this 'out'. If you can produce solid evidence, then the scientific theory you are attacking (whatever one it might be) must fail. This has happened before and will happen again. Science does not deal in 'unalterable truths'. Perhaps I best put it like this : 1. Creationism CANNOT be proven - certain key behaviours are, by definition, outside of the physical universe, and therefore cannot be explained or contained within a physical world view. 2. Creationism CANNOT be disproved - for the same reason as above. To disprove it would require the ability to disprove 'faith', which cannot be done for the same reasons as above. 3. Scientific theories like Evolution are unlikely to ever be 'proven'. Science can never say 'this thing is and must always be so', as this would require all knowledge of all things. Since this is an unlikely goal to ever be achieved, science instead can say only 'this is highly likely', or 'we have no reason to doubt this is so'. 4. Scientific theories like Evolution CAN be disproved. The history of science is a history of fallen theories. That's the whole point of it all - as the evidence comes to light that demonstrates you were wrong, you move on. So, to me this makes it all very clear. In the end, we can neither prove nor disprove creationism. We can never truly prove a scientific theory. So, our only avenue that is open to reasonable debate is to try and disprove science. So this is where energy MUST
Before I commment, I just wanted to make sure that you knew about this link. As much as I'd like to think that my arguments always sound rational, they don't, and I don't want you to get frustrated before reaching this link. http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm 1. Creationism CANNOT be proven - certain key behaviours are, by definition, outside of the physical universe, and therefore cannot be explained or contained within a physical world view. That is technically false, although you probably mean that a human can't prove it on his own, which I agree with. God could, at any point, instantly convince every living thing of the fact that He created the world, by overriding your free will or a host of other methods people could dream up. 2. Creationism CANNOT be disproved - for the same reason as above. To disprove it would require the ability to disprove 'faith', which cannot be done for the same reasons as above. The general idea of something creating the initial stuff of the universe does sound impossible for humans to disprove. However, disproving things is much easier than proving them, so I would not state this as 100% fact -- just 99%. Also, I'm not really trying to prove a generic creationism, the Bible is what I believe, and that can be disproved. I just haven't found anyone that's been able to do it without circular arguments, straw men, or bad interpretations of evidence. Does this explain clearly where I stand? You offer me two choices, and one of them is neither provable or disprovable. The other IS, in theory, disproveable. Therefore, the focus is on testing that validity of the only testable hypothesis. So far, creationist attempts to discredit evolution are spectacularly unsuccessful. Though I disagree with this completely, creationists don't need to do it since the evolutionists are succeeding on their own. Show me evidence that clearly disproves that age of the earth and evolution That's the only dicussion worth having in evidence - and again, offering and discussing an alternative theory is NOT disputing the evidence. Don't waste time posting links that support creationism - so me your evidence for discrediting evolution and 'old age' earth ? In most cases, this kind of evidence is one and the same thing. However, it appears that you're using the same rational you accuse me of using. How can I disprove the theory of evolution, when you can change it any time you like
-
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I'm not getting any email notifications when a reply is posted. *wonders what you're working on now...* Dang. That's the second complaint I've had about that. I'm getting bombarded with email notifications so I'm a little puzzled as to why it's been hit and miss with some. Maybe it's time to pull out the 'it must be something your end' cop-out card ;) the technical papers and less obvious evolutionist documents sometimes/often? contemplate the problems with relying on mutations and a basis for macro evolution. Which maybe explains why there is also the thought that evolution works in sudden jumps and starts, instead of being a smooth transition. It doesn't mean new information was added. Hmm. So, given two creatures, what is the cutoff that defines them as the same, or them as two different species. Everyone's DNA is different (hence DNA profiling) yet we are all so incredibly close too. As are pigs. So if pigs and humans are different (by 2% or less) but you and I are different (by something greater than 0%) what is the magic number? Actually this brings up a number of questions of which I don't have the vaguest idea: what exactly are the differences, genetically, between a pig and a human, and what are the differences between an eskimo and a zulu tribesman? cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Hmm. So, given two creatures, what is the cutoff that defines them as the same, or them as two different species. Everyone's DNA is different (hence DNA profiling) yet we are all so incredibly close too. As are pigs. So if pigs and humans are different (by 2% or less) but you and I are different (by something greater than 0%) what is the magic number? Actually this brings up a number of questions of which I don't have the vaguest idea: what exactly are the differences, genetically, between a pig and a human, and what are the differences between an eskimo and a zulu tribesman? Err... I'd like to explain that, but I've only got some reasonable notions as I'm sure you do, too. The main conceptual difference would probably lie in the fact that the genetic possibility of my children's genes are already contained in the genes of my wife and I. We aren't going to have pigs. (But you knew that, right? ;P) Wherever that line happens to be located is where I would draw the line to answer your question. John
-
No John, not really. The only way in which these clear, proven and sensible facts can turn out to be 'theories' that are 'base dupon assumptions' is if you completely overturn the entire bodies of scientific knowledge known as Geology, Biology, Astronomy, etc (I won't bother to list the endless stream of scientific disciplines that easily and conclusively prove the world is more thatn 6000 years old, and that many man made structures and artifacts (from stome tablets to tools) predate the biblical timetable by many thousands of years). Of course, this is precisely what Creationists do - ignore the overwhemling body of facts in favor of a lazy, disjointed collection of wild theories (the Ark actially held 16,000 different species of animal, for example - please!!), often supported by any pereieved 'hole' that can be found in existing knowledge. There is one true, clear , unarguable difference between science and Creationism. Creationism says the underlying fact is already known, and is unchangeable - that is, god created the worlds according to the biblical stories. This is the 'theory' that the facts need to support. So we continually look for facts that support this theory, and we ignore, twist and challenge continuous and evidence that is in contradiction to this theoyr. In Creationism, the 'theory' cannot be changed, it is the facts that must be forced to fit the theory. Science operates at both ends. For exmaple, we come up with the theory of evolution, based upon the evidence we have gathered. As we gather more evidence we flesh out the theory. If the evidence continues to support the theory, it matures. If substantial evidence is found that contradicts or breaks the theory, then we begin a process of (a) gathering more evidence, (b) re-examining the conflicting evidence to see if perhaps there has been an error in interpretation or gathering methods and (c) re-examine the theory to see how it might be modified to incorporate these new facts. This is science - let the evidence take you where it will (while also remembering to check and recheck the evidence to ensure it's integrity). The 'end point' of science is unknown - it flows in whichever direction the evidence leads. Creationism is anti-science. The end is already known, and it's a matter of trying to force all known facts to fit this all encompassing and invariant theory of creation. I can't even begin to post 'anti-creationist' links, since virtually the entire body of modern science contains fundamental contradictions to th
Creationism says the underlying fact is already known, and is unchangeable - that is, god created the worlds according to the biblical stories. This is the 'theory' that the facts need to support. So we continually look for facts that support this theory, and we ignore, twist and challenge continuous and evidence that is in contradiction to this theoyr. In Creationism, the 'theory' cannot be changed, it is the facts that must be forced to fit the theory. I really don't see much of a difference in this regard to the way evolution is popularly handled. When was the last time a set of evidence that scientists didn't understand in the framework of evolution was discussed in a widespread manner? Creationists let their information go all over the place, whereas evolutionists seem to keep the problems hidden. Do you think this is relevant? John
