Noah, One Continent and about a Billion Years Too Short
-
John, I am afraid we will never be able to have any kind of meaningful debate! You sound so intelligent and well read, yet you accept entirely ridiculous statements without blinking an eye! The page you to link to : Suggests the ice age happened less that 4000 years ago; The last (first/only?) Ice Age lasted less that 1000 years; the world had pleasant topography and climate everywhere What - the entire world (a globe, set off axis and cicling the sun) had the same temperature and climate everywhere? No seasons ?? I'm afraid you chose to ignore hundreds of years of clear, careful work by many thousands of men and women, of many religions (including no religion), in order to promote the nonsense of a few so called academics who sift through the enormous body of scientific evidence to find any little contradiction or perceived failing, and then proclaim the entire thing must be wrong - and then offer nonsensical theories of "massive continental changes" that occur over time frames of a few hundred years. Well, we are SO FAR APART that we can't even begin to discuss this. And I must disagree with Stan's earlier post - despite any spiritual or faith-based experiences you bring to the planet, your ability to plainly look past clear, precise and overwhelming evidence and instead pursue childish and simplistic Creationist concepts means we'd be better of without you and your dogma. (and yes, that does sound a little harsh!) ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Mike, You're running off some bad assumptions, the primary one being that you know why I believe what I believe. Directly related to that is the assumption that there isn't more evidence than what I've already talked about. The evolutionary viewpoint and Bible/Creation viewpoint use completely different series of assumptions and supporting arguments. Using one set of assumptions to disprove the conclusions of the other is not a useful way to debate things. First, you assume that I agree 100% with that article. Second, you assume that the earth has always been off-axis. It is possible that this has not always been the case, though I can't show you good evidence that it wasn't. Third, you assume that there isn't any way for a tilted earth to have a uniform climate. There are several Creationist theories about how that worked. Read up on some of them. "vapor canopy" would be the most useful search keywords. Well, we are SO FAR APART that we can't even begin to discuss this. And I must disagree with Stan's earlier post - despite any spiritual or faith-based experiences you bring to the planet, your ability to plainly look past clear, precise and overwhelming evidence and instead pursue childish and simplistic Creationist concepts means we'd be better of without you and your dogma. (and yes, that does sound a little harsh!) Actually, I've had much more harsh things directed at me. No big deal. :) However, I'm not plainly looking past the "past clear, precise and overwhelming evidence" since you haven't given me any of that. From what I remember of your posts, they are merely an attempt to discredit the creationist viewpoint. Besides, if the evidence was so clear, precise, and overwhelming, the evolutionists wouldn't be arguing among themselves about the most basic aspects of evolution. Here's a related link: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-173.htm#footnote4 Actually, I'm starting to wonder if you're not showing signs of being the one to ignore the evidence shown by the other side. But then, if all the information from creationism that you've seen is from what I've said, you don't have much to go on, yet. John
-
There is a great article I read about the Flood but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. In lieu, check out 'Common Sense and Noah's Flood. This has some of the hydrologic and meteorological arguments against a world-wide flood, but doesn't touch the thermodynamic impossibilities (the entire planet being at over 40C/110F with 99% rel. humidity or something like that just to hold the water vapour in cloud form). Then there are the genetic arguments: you need a minimum gene pool for a race to survive. Two of each won't do it. For an argument about a likely Ark scenario see Noah's ark had less than 280 animals. For an account of why getting two or seven of each animal on board is impossible check out Problems with a Global Flood. In any case, I think it's generally accepted that there was a flood but only in a relatively small area. In my view the Bible contains stories - some accurate, some dramatised or exagerated, and some made up. Anyone who tries to apply the scientific principle to such a work to support their faith is doomed to failure (and is welcome to come door knocking around my place anytime!). Besides - Christianity is based purely on faith and not on data, so even if you do prove something right or something wrong it doesn't actually affect the underlying principles. ooh - found the thing about thermodynamics: "_Is there enough water to cover the earth? The vapor canopy is remarkably flawed. It would take about 9 kilometers of water to cover Mount Everest. The air pressure at sea level is one atmosphere, or about 14.5 pounds per square inch. There would have to be enough vapor to produce 9 km of water. This vapor would add air pressure to the atmosphere; in fact, it would be the majority of the antediluvian atmosphere. This would be the equivalent of living 9 km underwater. Since the pressure increases by one atmosphere about every ten meters you go underwater, the vapor would add 900 atmospheres, or 13050 pounds per square inch, to the air pressure. And the only way to keep all this water from condensing would be to raise the temperature. The pressure and heat would surely be enough to kill life as we know it." - http://skepdic.com/comments/noahcom.html_ As to the whole time scale thing there is no reason to equate a 'day' with a day as we know it. There is
Hi Chris, I get the impression that your forays in the the Creation/Evolution debate were a while ago. Maybe not, but that's the impression I got from somewhere. :confused: Anyway, here is a page full of links to discussion of the ark-related questions you raised. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp There are reasonable answers to each of those issues, especially if you understand the entire creationist model. Here's a good link to where the water came from and addresses your mention of the vapor canopy idea. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp John
-
Like many of the stories in the bible, the truth is that they are adapted versions of myths and legends of earlier civilizations. The following excerpt from "Warfare of Science with Theology" recounts the vents that finally lead to the rejection of the literal Noah story: By the investigations of George Smith among the Assyrian tablets of the British Museum, in 1872, and by his discoveries just afterward in Assyria, it was put beyond a reasonable doubt that a great mass of accounts in Genesis are simply adaptations of earlier and especially of Chaldean myths and legends. While this proved to be the fact as regards the accounts of Creation and the fall of man, it was seen to be most strikingly so as regards the Deluge. The eleventh of the twelve tablets, on which the most important of these inscriptions was found, was almost wholly preserved, and it revealed in this legend, dating from a time far earlier than that of Moses, such features peculiar to the childhood of the world as the building of the great ship or ark to escape the flood, the careful caulking of its seams, the saving of a man beloved of Heaven, his selecting and taking with him into the vessel animals of all sorts in couples, the impressive final closing of the door, the sending forth different birds as the flood abated, the offering of sacrifices when the flood had subsided, the joy of the Divine Being who had caused the flood as the odour of the sacrifice reached his nostrils; while throughout all was shown that partiality for the Chaldean sacred number seven which appears so constantly in the Genesis legends and throughout the Hebrew sacred books. Other devoted scholars followed in the paths thus opened - Sayce in England, Lenormant in France, Schrader in Germany - with the result that the Hebrew account of the Deluge, to which for ages theologians had obliged all geological research to conform, was quietly relegated, even by most eminent Christian scholars, to the realm of myth and legend. Of course, any number of religious organisations reject such evidence, with excuses ranging from "Satan faked the evidence to confuse the true believers" to "you have to understand, the bible needs to be read 'in totality' to be truly understood". ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
The problem with that theory is that they can't safely assume that these myths and legend actually came before the Bible accounts, especially if you're right in your assumption that the book of Genesis was passed on orally for a long time. John
-
Genesis : 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; Gen.4:16-17 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth The Bible uses the same terminology to describe Cain's banishment - 'from the face of the earth' Depends upon the bible you refer to, and to the translations, and to which of the 5,000 or so of the original greek manuscripts you are working from (none of which match word for word, of course!) - In this case, the bible I'm working from (King James Version) does NOT use the same phrase for the banishment of Cain as it does for the flooding of "the earth". In both cases here "the earth" means EVERYWHERE you can go. That is, it is (apparently) a 'global' meaning, not a 'local' meaning. In relation to Flood, it says "the earth" was flooded. In the banishment of Cain, it says "And now art thou cursed from the earth", followed by "a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth". I concede the first quote says "from the earth", but it says "cursed", not "banished" or "removed". It seems a long shot to claim that the phrase "cursed from the earth" MUST mean that earth means only a small region of the planet! Of course, if you work from a different bible translation the words are probably not identical, and therefore we are simply talking in circles! What bible do you quote as the 'true' words/translation of god ? You must have a 'reference' version, or else any argument on any point can degenerate into simply arguing about translations - and you therefore would be forced to concede that your entire interpretation of various passages holds only if the tranlstion holds! Now, I'll grant that the word ALLOWS for the possibility of a worldwide flood, but it does not SAY that necessarily, and so my belief on what happens stems in part from the Bible text ( first and foremost ), and also context of other verses. So the mere fact that for virtually the entire 2000 year history of christianity the overwhelming majority of people decided to go with the "ALLOWS"(global) meaning rather than the "SAY"(local) meaning doesn't bother you at all ? The bible DOES indeed allow for a global meaning, and you represent a tiny fraction of a percent of the people who belive in the bible and yet choose to reinterpret these verses. That doesn't seem a little conceited to you? That you are right, and ev
Of course, if you work from a different bible translation the words are probably not identical, and therefore we are simply talking in circles! What bible do you quote as the 'true' words/translation of god ? If the translations are unclear I turn to the original texts and a lexicon. Regarding years of tradition on the subject, the fact is that religion hid the Bible from people for most of the Christian age, so it's not like we have 2,000 years of people actually pondering it. It's more that some stories were better known, and their contents are assumed to be as was taught in Sunday School. For example, the Bible nowhere says people die and go to heaven. But it's a nice idea, so people assume it's in there when they read the Bible. Well, I was going to post asking what rock videos you have ripped, but this kind of caught my eye and distracted me. My list of mpg and mp3s is now just under 10,000. I mostly concentrate on bands like Cinderella, Guns n Roses, Motley Crue, etc., but I also love 80's pop like Duran Duran, and I especially jump at the chance to grab obscure one hit wonders from the 80's. I am looking everywhere for Shiny Shiny by Hayzee Fantayzee, for example. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
The problem with that theory is that they can't safely assume that these myths and legend actually came before the Bible accounts, especially if you're right in your assumption that the book of Genesis was passed on orally for a long time. 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
-
Mike, You're running off some bad assumptions, the primary one being that you know why I believe what I believe. Directly related to that is the assumption that there isn't more evidence than what I've already talked about. The evolutionary viewpoint and Bible/Creation viewpoint use completely different series of assumptions and supporting arguments. Using one set of assumptions to disprove the conclusions of the other is not a useful way to debate things. First, you assume that I agree 100% with that article. Second, you assume that the earth has always been off-axis. It is possible that this has not always been the case, though I can't show you good evidence that it wasn't. Third, you assume that there isn't any way for a tilted earth to have a uniform climate. There are several Creationist theories about how that worked. Read up on some of them. "vapor canopy" would be the most useful search keywords. Well, we are SO FAR APART that we can't even begin to discuss this. And I must disagree with Stan's earlier post - despite any spiritual or faith-based experiences you bring to the planet, your ability to plainly look past clear, precise and overwhelming evidence and instead pursue childish and simplistic Creationist concepts means we'd be better of without you and your dogma. (and yes, that does sound a little harsh!) Actually, I've had much more harsh things directed at me. No big deal. :) However, I'm not plainly looking past the "past clear, precise and overwhelming evidence" since you haven't given me any of that. From what I remember of your posts, they are merely an attempt to discredit the creationist viewpoint. Besides, if the evidence was so clear, precise, and overwhelming, the evolutionists wouldn't be arguing among themselves about the most basic aspects of evolution. Here's a related link: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-173.htm#footnote4 Actually, I'm starting to wonder if you're not showing signs of being the one to ignore the evidence shown by the other side. But then, if all the information from creationism that you've seen is from what I've said, you don't have much to go on, yet. John
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
-
Hey Chris, 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. Genes work the same way, since the collection is designed to accomplish a goal and an incorrect gene hampers the ability to accomplish that goal. As far as the genetic diversity problem with 2 of a kind producing the animals we now see goes; the problem is that you base your assumptions on the evolutionary model of upward progression from less information. The Bible model starts from perfect genes and then the effects of sin cause random mutations to slowly corrupt the gene pool. So, now it would be very difficult to find two of a species that could produce enough genetically diverse offspring in order to have a long-lasting and healty set of descendants. John John
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)
-
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)
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 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
