Thursday, June 12, 2008
K-D: THE CREATION OF THE WORLD Part 4
There is no allusion in Ge 2:2-3 to the Sabbath of the Israelites; and the week of seven days is older than the Sabbath of the Jewish covenant. Natural research, again, will never explain the origin of the universe, or even of the earth; for the creation lies beyond the limits of the territory within its reach. By all modest naturalists, therefore, it is assumed that the origin of matter, or of the original material of the world, was due to an act of divine creation. But there is no firm ground for the conclusion which they draw, on the basis of this assumption, with regard to the formation or development of the world from its first chaotic condition into a fit abode for man. All the theories which have been adopted, from Descartes to the present day, are not the simple and well-established inductions of natural science founded upon careful observation, but combinations of partial discoveries empirically made, with speculative ideas of very questionable worth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
189 comments:
I said I wouldn't comment on this one but...
There is so much wrong with almost everything you said, I literally (HA! Literally!) laughed. Out loud.
This is a quote from the Keil and Delitzsch commentary on Genesis 1, composed in the late 19th century. I suppose you can laugh out loud if you like, but I don't see that as a particularly helpful approach to discussion.
I suppose the final sentence is pretty funny...let's just set aside the underpinning materialism tho, before the chops start flapping.
Still, nice to know that a person of your refined intellect and great sense of humour drops by the blog.
Healyhatman, I just dropped over to your profile...so...you 'hate creationists' eh?
Big deal!
I guess that this implies you are a materialist, so your 'hate' would in those terms have as much basis or significance as dust rolling down a hill.
No rancour here, just a consequence of materialism.
OTOH if you're not a materialist then I'd be interested in your set of basic beliefs.
As I said Mr 22 y.o., when you've mastered words of more than 2 syllables or more complex ideas than those contained in Jack and Jill, we'd love to hear you unpack why you hate so much about this world.
But then again, there is a reasonable (and calculable!) probability that you'll drop dead in your sleep and so your hate and thoughts, on your understanding of the universe, won't amount to..to steal a line from one of my favourite movies...anything more than a gnat on the reaend of a cow standing in a field eating grass as someone flies by at 55mph.
I've gone over my beliefs plenty of times sorry :)
There's a blog-post called "Denial" over on my blog with I think about 40 replies consisting of a huge argument, I think it has a decent hash-out of beliefs and what-not.
Oh and John...
"Lit-er-a-lly"
"ever-y-thing"
But like I said in an earlier of these "Creation of the World" posts, explain to me your views on Genesis 30. The one with the goats and the coloured sticks. How does that mesh with your perception of the real world?
Healy, grow up and stick to the topic at hand. I.e., regardless of what you think of Genesis, what did its author intend to convey. As shown here, there is no doubt that the author intended to teach that God created the universe in six normal-length consecutive days.
As for Gen. 30:25-31:13, yes, Jacob was trying "sympathetic magic", but the point was that this was bunk! God intervened because Laban was cheating him, but told him that his silly magic had nothing to do with the results. See Mr Green Genes? Does the Bible Teach Magical Genetics? .
No doubt? If there was no doubt then everyone would believe it.
The problem being, of course, is that all the evidence (except for your bronze-age book) points away from the age you YEC's tend to give to the Earth.
Going to go read that link you posted.
Well, that's unfortunate.
Creationist 1
Healyhatman 0
Touché, sir/madam, touché.
Healyhatman wrote: "Well, that's unfortunate.
Creationist 1
Healyhatman 0
Touché, sir/madam, touché."
What? A display of ntellectual honesty! Rare thing nowadays!
Not so rare with me. If I say something and am proven incorrect it's only fair and right to acknowledge that mistake and move on.
I've acknowledged a few mistakes and corrected myself both on my blog and in discussions with other readers of Craig's Blog, for example.
However, this is one bible passage. There's also the matter of the canopy of water in the flood story, the lack of any evidence whatsoever for a global flood, the huge amount of evidence against a young earth... I could go on but as ktisopholos said I'm off topic.
So, to get back to topic, why are the current theories of the creation of the universe "speculative ideas of very questionable worth" ? They're backed up by constantly-expanding evidence and reasoned out and tested by some of the brightest minds of our time.
And what does the author mean by "all modest naturalists" ? If they're a naturalist, surely that means that they can't take a supernatural cop-out as an explanation? Wouldn't that make them the opposite of a naturalist, to dismiss natural explanations and instead focus on supernatural?
From wikipedia: Naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
Healyhatman if there had been a world-wide flood what evidence would you expect to see?
What is your best-specific- piece of evidence againsy a young earth?
Please respond to the comments I made in part 1 (I think) of this "series" warwick :)
Now, I would expect to see a global layer of sediment that appears *everywhere*, at the same timeframe, a few thousand years ago. I would expect this layer of sediment would contain every type of fossil from what we science-minded individuals call the Cambrian right up to a few thousand years ago.
I would expect to see fossil evidence indicating that all the animals of the world disappeared at the same time, and reappeared from a single location. Maybe including some dinosoaur fossils inexplicably littered around the remains of a huge ship.
I would also expect there to not be any stars or galaxies beyond 6,000 light years away. I would expect that all the radiological dating methods give a reading of 6,000 years. I would expect the way different fossils are placed in the fossil record to be completely random as opposed to the mainly ordered fashion they currently reside in.
That's just for starters. I'll put the question to asktheatheist and get back to you.
My best specific piece would depend, Warwick. By "Young Earth" do you also mean "Young Universe" ?
If it was earth it would be the multiply-controlled physics-based constantly-tested radio-isotope testing.
If it included the universe, the presence of stars beyond 6,000 light years away.
There I've posed the question to asktheatheist. Which is, by the way, a fantastic resource for any question you might have. They're answered intelligently and with a decent amount of detail.
Don't be thinking it's all about atheist propaganda though - for a start, one answer told a fellow enquiring atheist about the historic evidence for a >man< called Jesus, along with stating that few to no respected biblical scholars would suggest he never existed at all.
So, bam.
Healy,
All good questions. All deserve answers.
I'm at work at the moment and unfortunately, despite working for your Government, I must do a little work.
All of us are quite capable of answering your questions, but give us a little time. To be fair, though, you'll have to do a little work yourself i.e. take a look at some links that will inevitably be posted.
While my university training is primarily in philosophy and religion, some here have serious professional postgraduate degrees in hard science so they should be best placed for that area. However, and I must dash, you must lay off the Wikipedia quotes because that site struggles to cut the mustard in academic circles.
Re your understanding of 'naturalism', this is a classic case of question begging. You see, if there really was a "supernatural" dimension to reality, then a definition which a priori excludes it, by definition will never "see" it. It merely assumes (i.e. only the physical) what it seeks to establish (i.e only the physical).
Even apart from this inherent circularity, the definition you threw up contains its own internal contradiction. How do you establish the physicality/naturalism of naturalism's definition. In the end it is merely a self-serving assertion. This is what shot the logical positivists in their own feet when they proudly thought they had removed all ambiguity from defining science.
Naturalism works fine if you're only seeking to explain empirical and repeatable events but it hardly qualifies to explain past events and in particular one-off ones. I know of no sustainable crime against logic if one seeks an explanation for, say, the origin of life, in non-naturalistic mechanisms. For example, to say that the requisite biopolymer optical activity was thoughtfully selected by Mind rather than stochastic chemistry (which, BTW, can't theoretically or empirically produce evolution's basic components) is a proposition which contains nothing inherently illogical. That you may not agree for religious reasons (i.e. your atheism) is an entirely different case all together.
But in any case, God's operation in the world doesn't necessarily have to be "super"natural. It can be quite "natural". For example, if there had been a worldwide flood where all life was destroyed and they had been buried by huge amounts of sedimentary rock laid down by tremendous amounts of flowing water, what is a reasonable prediction what it would look like today?
Healyhatman-too smart by far. Yes, had there been a world-wide flood we would indeed expect to see sedimentary rock layers world-wide. But you made at least one error of logic. We are discussing the Biblical flood but you theorized, looking for it,through your old-earth 'glasses'-deep time based upon flawed methods and untestable assumptions. Compare apples with apples.
Think again, had there been such a flood we would expect to see untold billions of creatures buried in sedimentary rock world-wide. And that's exactly what we see, billions of creatures buried rapidly by deep layers of water-borne sediment, buried rapidly therefore protected from decay. Hence then able to fossilize. This suits the available evidence better than your proposal. We see complete creatures in sedimentary rock, which have not been eaten or decayed. How can creatures be buried over long periods of time and not be attacked by other animals and/or bacteria?
We even see un-permineralized dinosaur bone in sediments, still with blood cells and other organic materials which miraculously have not decayed in the imagined millions of years. References available.
At the Grand Canyon there are numerous massive layers of sedimentary rock (some 100M plus thick) extending down about 1.5k, each on top of the other, each layed down rapidly, under deep fast flowing water with no evidence between each layer(such as erosion) that any long time period had passed.
Fits with Noah's flood but shoots the millions/billions of years idea full of holes.
As to my second question you said 'the huge amount of evidence against a young earth...' So my question should be clear to you.
There is one hugely disastrous flaw in your argument.
Why are there no rabbits buried with cambrian-era fossils? No triceratops with humans, no humans with T-rexes, no Archaeopteryx with cats? No Jurassic fossils mixed in with Cretaceous, Cretaceous with Devonian?
If the animals were all alive at the same time and all fossilised at the same time wouldn't we expect them to be mixed together?
And wouldn't there be more? After all every bit of the earth should be covered with this sedimentary layer and all of it should be filled with fossils but no, as science expects, fossils are rare.
You also said:
We even see un-permineralized dinosaur bone in sediments, still with blood cells and other organic materials which miraculously have not decayed in the imagined millions of years. References available.
Please give those references. All I had heard was the recent discovery of a single T-rex leg bone with pseudo-intact marrow.
Why are there no coelacanths buried with whales? We know that they both live in the sea now. Lesson: arguments from silence or absence are weak.
BTW, most creationists don't believe in the canopy theory, and it was never regarded as a direct teaching of Scripture.
Those honest with the TEXT of Genesis, rather than being intimidated by uniformitarian "science", understand that it teaches creation in six normal length days about 6,000 years ago.
Why are there no coelacanths buried with whales? We know that they both live in the sea now. Lesson: arguments from silence or absence are weak.
Another lesson: pick an example I actually used. A good one.And what does them living in the ocean have to do with anything? I'm sure you have an answer I'll find amusing.
Healy,
Kt made a [not so] subtle philosophical point and you missed it. You're straw manning the creationist case that all things must be found together in the one spot. Why should they? This is not the creationist case. If you want to attack our argument you must know what we propose.
BTW when Warwick gives you the link to the T-Rex bone and blood it will blow your mind away. This is not creationist material but from an evolutionary scientist as reported in...as I recall..Nature. I have a picture of it and you ACTUALLY see red blood cells and unfossilised bone and flesh. There goes that 65 million year gap!
And there are even more fantastic sights to "see". Are you ready, Healyhatman?
So like I said, one example when he alluded to many.
You're straw manning the creationist case that all things must be found together in the one spot. Why should they?
Because all the animals were apparently alive at the same time and killed within days of each other.
What IS the creationist view on fossils then? Why, to you and the others here, are they not all mixed together? Why are they at the same order across different geological locations? Was it God or the Devil that put them where they are?
I've already seen the T-rex link and it doesn't throw away the 65million years at all.
I said references because like I said, the way he phrased his comment made it seem he was referring to many examples instead of 1.
So you truly believe that blood and flesh could stay intact for 65 millions of years? That is an incredible claim. Even the woman, an evolutionist, who found this material was incredulous. So if it were expected that blood could last that long, why was she initially in disbelief? Why then did she suddenly throw away her gut reaction and commonsense?
Please define "mixed together". What should a Flood geological scenario be expected to look like?
Do you believe that the fossil record is quite orderly and that there are absolutely no-out-of place fossils?
See the following:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1622
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3279
Healyhatman I have this funny little rule when I play games with astute 'science-minded individuals' such as you: I ask a question and if and when it is answered we can progress ok?
I asked: 'What is your best-specific- piece of evidence againsy a young earth?'
You answered: 'If it was earth ( hey H no fooling you)it would be the multiply-controlled physics-based constantly-tested radio-isotope testing.'
You call this a specific answer? Descend to the particular Healy and give us some specific info. Broad brush-strokes just don't make it!
Tell us how one of these methods operates and give us a specific example of where this specific method was used.
Wow, the guy actually said SORTING MECHANISM!
These must be old links John, I don't think even the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis dare mention THAT particular hypothesis
"But, as the above example proves vividly, it takes only one well-placed life-form to completely demolish existing notions of stratomorphic intermediates"
Yes, because when one species evolves into another all of the previous species all across the world must automatically disappear.
Evolutionists recognize a serious threat to their whole argument—evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
No really, "hahaha"
Ok I've had enough of that link.
You need to realise that fossils are rare. The oft-specific conditions required for fossilisation don't always occur and hence we don't have every patch of dirt we scratch at teeming with fossils. So it is obvious eventually one might find fossils in a period of time earlier than anywhere else - possibly because, for example, that is where their original habitat was located.
On to the Trex-bone you keep mentioning.
It wasn't red blood cells exactly. It was a layer of structures "like blood cells and etc etc etc" there's an important distinction to make. The bone wasn't cracked open and blood started dripping out.
Can I just end with asking how creationists explain why plants survived? A lot of plants, John, die if you soak them in salt water for a month.
And where did the water that "bubbled up from the depths" come from, and where did it go?
Going to look at warwicks comments next.
Ok Warwick, how is that not a specific piece of evidence? Or do you want me to state a single act of radio-isotope dating so you can state a single act of it supposedly not working?
Of course it's a broad "brush stroke" Warwick - because it's been done millions upon millions of times.
What's your explanation for stars visible beyond 6,000 light years away though if you don't mind?
Healy You answered:
'If it was earth it would be the multiply-controlled physics-based constantly-tested radio-isotope testing.'
To which I replied:
'You call this a specific answer? Descend to the particular Healy and give us some specific info. Broad brush-strokes just don't make it!'
This is no answer but only a generalization. Please explain the mechanism by which such dating methods work? Is your reticence to do so indicative of your lack of your understanding of the mechanism perhaps?
When you have done that I will happily give the references you seek regarding blood cells in un-permineralized T-Rex bone. Note 'blood cells' not blood running out. A spot of straw-man popping up methinks.
Explain the mechanisms? I'm sorry does my profile state I'm a fucking physicist? Methinks you know how the mechanism works and you're just trying to get me to say something uninformed so you can hit back with an equally ill-prepared and oft-used creationist argument.
But I'll bite. Later on tonight I'll give you your link to the examples and explanation page. For now I have a game to play and a movie to go see.
Healy you are right my aim was to see if you know what you are talking about or if you are just parroting what someone wrote. Your answer makes it very clear you don't have a clue, and are crude to boot.
Yes I do know how the mechanisms work.
Creationists 2 Atheists 0
Healy asks about explaining distant starlight. Does he realize that big-bangers have their own problem with light travel? I.e. how could background temperature of the universe could have equilibrated to one part in about 100,000, when there has been no-where enough time for energy to have traversed from hot to cold parts. This is even under the supposed evolutionary age for the universe http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/
Blood vessels, blood cells, enough hemoglobin to provide the right spectrum and induce an immune reaction—this is supposed to be 65 million years old?? The discoverers were skeptical at first that they could have lasted that long. Conversely, I believe what was discovered and instead am skeptical of the millions of years! http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4504
BTW, none other than Charles Darwin showed that many seeds will germinate after months of immersion in brine. Plants could also continue by vegetative propagation.
Healy said: "Now, I would expect to see a global layer of sediment that appears *everywhere*, at the same timeframe, a few thousand years ago. I would expect this layer of sediment would contain every type of fossil from what we science-minded individuals call the Cambrian right up to a few thousand years ago."
There are divergent views among Biblical Creationists as to the merit of the Geoligic Column as a reliable guide to the layering of sedimentary rock. Some see merit in retaining it as a starting point. Others want a new framework.
Nevertheless, all reject the time frame applied to it by much of the scientific establishment and all recognise its incompleteness eg two-thirds of the earth's land surface has five or fewer of the ten geological periods in place. Only 15-20% of earth's land surface has even three geological periods in correct order.
The earth's land surface does not come with a 'time tag'. In the absence of this, the establishment applies a uniformitarian assumption (as does Healy Hatman).
Anomalous fossils are reported. Finding two fossils of 'different ages' in the same layer prompt anomalous explanations from the establishment. This is also the resort when a 'young' fossil is found in 'old' strata. Then there are the 'older' fossils found in rocks that contain'young' fossils.
I think too that Healy expects to see evidence that would only occur if something like a tranquil global flood occurred and that such would be sufficient to bury and fossilise living things. Biblical Creationists do not believe that a tranquil flood occurred and they do not believe that such a flood would produce the extent of fossils found in the world.
Neil Moore
Correction in the prior post.
Delete: Geoligic
Insert: Geologic
Neil Moore
Busy reading through the comments, been at the hospital all day - my sister has been (temporarily, we hope) paralysed.
ktsiphosomething said "big bangers have their own problem with distant starlight... something about hot and cold..."
Do you mean the cosmic background radiation, or starlight? Either way, that's not an answer.
Of course they would want a new framework, Niell. Probably in the same way that creationists want a new definition of the scientific method tailored to include "God did it" as an answer.
Also what in my "expectations of a biblical flood evidence" indicated a tranquil flood?
By the way, have you people seen Thunderf00t's YouTube series, "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists" ?
I will never fully understand why you people want to continually demolish science for the sole reason of it not agreeing with your bronze-age book written by desert nomads. You don't seem to realise "science" does not mean "atheism" and a lot of scientists are in fact Christian.
I'm not talking about the fake scientists like convicted fraud Kent Hovind or the fun folks at Discovery Institute. I'm talking about the ones that don't ignore all the evidence that goes against an ancient book, accepting only the evidence that agrees with it, trying to poke holes in everything else.
Also, how many of you are Intelligent Design supporters?
More questions. I'm not interested in "God Did It" as an answer.
1) What did the predators eat? The bible told Noah to get all the food he would need, but ignoring the question of where the hell he GOT several hundred tonnes of meat, how did he keep it from going rotten (salting it would have probably been bad for the animals) and after the flood, how did he stop the predators from going to town on all the prey running around? Where did he get the meat to feed them for the months (most likely years) it would have taken to get the prey populations back up?
2) Who fed and watered all the animals? Consider all the species (or kinds?) of animal ever having been in existence. That's a lot of animals, especially considering there were supposed to be seven of the clean animals. Who did the feeding and watering when there was just noah and his family?
3) If dinosaurs were on the ark, how did he stop them from employing their natural instincts and eating everyone a la Jurassic Park? (The predators obviously).
4) Who cleaned up after the animals? 40 days and 40 nights translates into a lot of mess to clean up to stop animals from getting sick.
5) How did he get the animals TO the ark, considering some (say for example, echidnaes and platypi) are endemic to Australia (echidnas to Aus and PNG) and then how did he get them home? Magic?
6) given the dimensions of the Ark, the amount of food required and the number of animals he supposedly must have had on there (including dinosaurs we've found fossils of AND ones we must assume are not yet discovered) and taking into the account the materials used and the fact this was all built by one man and his family in HOW LONG... could it have even taken the weight? You talk about cataclysmic flooding.... How cataclysmic are we talking, how big would the waves have been and how fast were they moving? Would a wooden boat built by 1 guy have really withstood that?
7) He sent out how many ravens? 2? Are ravens clean or unclean? Do we still have ravens because there were more than two or because the two birds found each other?
8) What would happen to your beliefs if we eventually found sentient life that had recorded history far beyond what is currently your 6,000 years for us? Would you dismiss it and say they were lying?
That will do for now I thinks :)
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
Healey I am off in 30 minute for a spot of car racing and back on Saturday. So am unable to spend the time to patiently answer all your your Noah's Ark questions which (yawn) have been answered over and over.
I am continually amazed at the ignorance antagonists demonstrate about what creationists believe and the ignorance of the answers which have been given, and are available on sites such as www. creationontheweb.com
The book 'Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study' answers all your questions, and more but I am sure you haven't even herard of it. Written by a working scientist BTW.
And you still have to explain how your dating methods work. Maybe because you don't know, just blindly trusting them because you feel they support your belief. So very scientific!
Gotta go.
Healy,
Did you see the program other night on TV where there was, I think, this South African man who had worked with fully-grown lions all his life in some sort of sanctuary. He could really communicate with them and played with them and they wih him.
Then I was watching a program about another African who swam and played with white pointers. As a diver myself this was extraordinarily surprising.
Sorry, what was that question again about predators?
As Warwick said to you, unlike the lads over at the Sydney Anglican site, creationists actually can answer all(?) those questions. If you aren't a time waster and have gained a little wisdom in your extrememly short (but meaningful) life and can see that a person can be wrong, why don't you spend a little time on the CMI website.
Re my Arts Degree, all your beliefs about this being the degree for intellectually-challenged or poor people, you could be absolutely correct in my case. On the other hand it may be that I chose this degree because after decades of travelling the world, living in a war zone, living on the streets of America, working and being in dozens and dozens of countries, even before your were a sperm in your father's sack, I thought all that information, language proficiency and life's experience could be better put to use in this kind of degree rather than in the hard sciences. In the very least, it was the direct cause of meeting my absolutely gorgeous and exotic foreign wife. Sorry Mr 22 year-old, what can you boast about to me?
I've probably had crazier dirtier sex than you for a start, Christian.
I'll have a look at that creationist website you were going on about. Not right now I haven't slept for 30 hours.
Same to warwick. I do understand not only the mechanisms but the multiple checks and balances implemented to ensure that the results are both correct and consistent. I am far too sleepy right now to go through it. I am going for a nap and then getting up to go to karaoke.
Healy,
Do keep all of us informed about your sister. I can speak for all of us at this site, our prayers and thoughts are with you and all your family.
John
Healy said: "I've probably had crazier dirtier sex than you for a start, Christian."
I wouldn't put any money on that, pagan, after all our God invented it!
Whilst I don't believe your prayers have had / would have any effect, I do appreciate the sentiment. So thankyou for that.
I got a call about... 3-4 hours? ago that she could move her legs again and was so relieved she had been bought to tears. I'll have to see when I go in in the morning just how far along she has progressed.
So to reiterate - I don't believe in prayer, but I do believe in the sentiment. Thanks.
Also that's a fairly funny point of sorts there John :P
Healy asked: "Also what in my "expectations of a biblical flood evidence" indicated a tranquil flood?"
Healy, I have presumed you wanted uniformity in sedimentary layering across the world and uniformity of fossil deposit.
Is that correct? If so, a tranquil flood is the best prescription for this.
Neil Moore
We're well pleased that your sister has begun to heal. You must be one joyful brother at this moment.
Healy
The book Warwick cited has all the answers, but here is a brief summary. See also How did the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
"1) What did the predators eat?"
Whalers a few centuries ago used fodder tortoises. Dried meat and other foodstuffs would drastically save weight, and could be easily reconstituted with rainwater.
"The bible told Noah to get all the food he would need, but ignoring the question of where the hell he GOT several hundred tonnes of meat,"
From several hundred tonnes of animals.
"how did he keep it from going rotten (salting it would have probably been bad for the animals)"
Plenty of rainwater to wash it out when needed. Dried and salted meat doesn't need high technology, and has an ancient history.
"and after the flood, how did he stop the predators from going to town on all the prey running around?"
Most predators will save energy by feasting on carrion, even quite "off". Some of it might be exhumed.
"2) Who fed and watered all the animals? Consider all the species (or kinds?) of animal ever having been in existence. That's a lot of animals, especially considering there were supposed to be seven of the clean animals."
Only about 16,000 land vertebrate passengers.
"Who did the feeding and watering when there was just noah and his family?"
Low tech devices like long feeding and watering troughs filled from a central station.
"3) If dinosaurs were on the ark, how did he stop them from employing their natural instincts and eating everyone a la Jurassic Park? (The predators obviously)."
Who said they were full grown? They hatched from eggs no bigger than footballs, and went through a major growth spurt. God would have brought animals of the right age to undergo their growth spurt after they left the Ark. See How did dinosaurs grow so big? And how did Noah fit them on the Ark?. Recent research indicates that dinosaurs could lay eggs before they were fully grown.
"4) Who cleaned up after the animals? 40 days and 40 nights translates into a lot of mess to clean up to stop animals from getting sick."
For centuries, Dutch farmers have kept animals over the long winter in a grupstal, from grup, old Dutch for gutter. This is a long stall with fences on the outside wall to which cattle or sheep are chained. This fence has feeding and watering troughs, while in the middle there is a gutter for wastes. There is plenty of rainwater to wash the waste into a central tank, where it could be vermicomposted.
An even simpler storage is the Dutch potstal. They merely have some absorbent material like straw, peat or sawdust on the floor. This is regularly topped up by clean straw that the farmer keeps above the animals. This can pile to about 50 cm thick over the winter, but takes very little maintenance. The odour is negligible until it is washed out at the close of winter.
"5) How did he get the animals TO the ark, considering some (say for example, echidnaes and platypi) are endemic to Australia (echidnas to Aus and PNG) and then how did he get them home? Magic?"
The pre-Flood world was likely only one continent. See also How did the animals get [from and] to Australia?
"6) given the dimensions of the Ark, the amount of food required and the number of animals he supposedly must have had on there (including dinosaurs we've found fossils of AND ones we must assume are not yet discovered) and taking into the account the materials used and the fact this was all built by one man and his family in HOW LONG..."
Who said he couldn't hire workmen? The Pyramids were far bigger but were built during a Pharaoh's reign.
"could it have even taken the weight? "
Very easily, as Korean navy designers showed in Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway.
"You talk about cataclysmic flooding.... How cataclysmic are we talking, how big would the waves have been and how fast were they moving? Would a wooden boat built by 1 guy have really withstood that?"
Yes, in fact waves three times bigger than the Boxing Day tsunami (see above), if the wood were thick enough, esp. a monocoque with cross-ply or mortice and tenon joints.
"7) He sent out how many ravens? 2? Are ravens clean or unclean? Do we still have ravens because there were more than two or because the two birds found each other?"
Probably unclean. Flying creatures find each other easily, e.g. through mating calls or pheromones.
"8) What would happen to your beliefs if we eventually found sentient life that had recorded history far beyond what is currently your 6,000 years for us? Would you dismiss it and say they were lying?"
What would it take to alter your atheistic beliefs? Or like Richard Lewontin and Scott Todd, would no evidence would shift you, because of an a priori commitment to materialism?
BTW, Kent Hovind was NOT a convicted fraud, but a convicted tax evader. His evasion was foolish, and many creationists counselled him against it. But his punishment (hardly any less than mass-murdering gangster Al Capone) was excessive, vindictive and intimidatory. But most of us here would probably support CMI's critique of Hovind.
Healy, the article cited is quite clear. The CMB corresponds to black body radiation of a certain background temperature. This background is virtually uniform, yet there is insufficient time for electromagnetic radiation to have equilibrated the temperature. This is why the distant starlight problem affects big bangers just as much as creationists.
One continent hey? And the water split these continents up and shifted them in a mere 6 months without leaving evidence of such a violent shift in such a short amount of time?
16,000 animal passengers you say? Really, just 16,000? You sure about that?
You didn't answer my question about if sentient life with more recorded history.... What would it take to alter my atheistic beliefs? Nothing less than God himself coming down and proving his existence.
Healy said: "What would it take to alter my atheistic beliefs? Nothing less than God himself coming down and proving his existence."
Can you unpack that for us?
Unpack it how, how can there be any additional complexity to that answer?
I will believe when God himself gives me a personal audience. When God himself comes down and says "Hi" and proves himself. To me, not to bronze age desert dwellers 2k years ago who waited a generation or two to actually write anything down.
Healy, what markers are needed to establish that the sentient life you refer to is older than 6,000 years i.e. what method of dating the past is absolutely reliable?
Neil Moore
OK, maybe not 16,000. Possibly much fewer if the kind roughly corresponded to the family rather than to the genus.
Why should God pander to a spoiled 22yo? This also presupposes that he hasn't already provided enough evidence in creation as well as the moral law (Romans 1–2).
Spoiled, Kt? Really, spoiled?
And obviously he hasn't provided enough evidence else there's be no argument.
Also you were worried I thought 16,000 animals was too high a number?
Neil, must you continue to make a simple question more difficult? I said if a sentient race had more than 6,000 years of RECORDED HISTORY. Which part of that, exactly, do you find difficult to understand?
Hi folks I am back from a successful spot of very wet-weather car racing, managing to bring both cars home undamaged despite quite a bit of off-road slithering in the mud. Can't say the same for the guy who put his BMW M3 backwards into the tyre wall. He now has a considerably shorter car. Not a happy camper.
At one stage my attention was drawn to my rear-view mirror in which I saw an HSV commodore spinning out of control, and gaining on me as I was endeavouring to brake from about 180KPH, to take a fast-approaching 90kph RH bend! Riveting stuff. He went past me backwards, into the 'kitty litter'
Did Healy ever answer my question about his dating techniques? Did he ever explain how they work? Come on Healy enlighten us mere mortals!
Healy you said 'I will never fully understand why you people want to continually demolish science for the sole reason of it not agreeing with your bronze-age book written by desert nomads. You don't seem to realise "science" does not mean "atheism" and a lot of scientists are in fact Christian.'
Being a follower of the God described in the 'bronze-age book written by desert nomads' I wonder where you get the idea that we reject science. If you knew even a tiny weeney little bit of scientific history you would know that the scientific method-testable, repeatable, observable-which has given us amazing technological and medical advances, was developed by followers of the bronze age nomads God.
You may have heard of some of them, such as Keppler, Bacon, Boyle,Steno, Mather, Harvey, Huygens et al Christians to a man!
They were followed by such as-Newton,Whiston, Woodward, Linnaeus, Herschel, Leibnitz, then Faraday, Davy, Cuvier, Bell, Babbage, et al- Christians to a man.
We do not reject 'science' as our Spiritual ancestors invented it! We do however reject the philosophy of evolution as it is not testable by the scientific method. It is a belief, not capable of scientific proof, and contrary to the evidence.
As an evolutionist you have no basis for your arrogant dismissal of God's word, just the opposite.
If I am wrong please propose a laboratory experiment by which we can test evolution.
Healy wrote as his test for the existence of God: "I will believe when God himself gives me a personal audience. When God himself comes down and says "Hi" and proves himself."
Fair enough. Now, this is the part I want unpacked. What would God do/say that would prove that this Being is actually God? I mean, I could walk up to you and say "Hi" I'm God, but I reasonably sure you are almost entirely rational and wouldn't accept my proposal...though I know from personal experience in India, and elsewhere, some readily accept some geezers (and geezets) as God. I think you're far too astute than those. So set out your epistemic action plan, ol' son, because a man who say there is no God must provide a set of criteria just in case the universe was created by [a] God.
Healy, I hold to my position.
The Bible is an historical record which purports to present events occurring in the first 4,000 years of earth history. A chronology is provided which historians such as Ussher and others have used to author annals. In more recent years Dr Floyd Nolen Jones makes a good fist of dating people and events of the Old Testament in his work "The Chronology of the Old Testament".
Despite the work of these and other historians/scholars there are others who through various interpretations of biblical and external sources arrive at different datings for earth history. Even among these detractors ther is no uniformity of opinion.
Egyptology has its differing camps of dating RECORDED HISTORY. As David Rohl, Egyptologist said "The problems of carbon dating are notorious to Egyptologists" (or words to that effect).
Given the disparity of opinions I ask - What markers do you want or rather what will be conclusive for all?
Healy, it has been a couple of days since you last posted, I hope things well for your sister. Nevertheless, I too will pray for her even though you doubt the worth of it.
I suppose you are amazed at alleged Christians squabbling as you see on this site. Don't worry about it. We are only having a bit of fun with some people whose pride lends itself to some sport. We, well most of us on this side of the discussion, have chosen pseudonyms so that the whole thing doesn't get too serious.
Neil Moore
Actually for the last few days it's been my girlfriend!
I thought I was finally out of going to the hospital now that my sister was better.... and BAM Ashley goes and cuts her foot open on a screen door (the corner was broken and very sharp).
We were in the hospital for SEVEN HOURS to get her 4 stitches.
Healy, sorry to hear about your girlfriend. I hope her foot will be ok. Now tell the truth, was she trying to kick you and missed?
Healy,
I've worked in a few hospitals. I don't know what the situation in Newcastle is, but in inner Sydney if you want "minor" operations done, it's always best to pick a small hospital like Sydney where the emergency traffic is low. That, my friend, is a trade secret.
Was just a bad night is all, lot of sick and injured people :)
Back on the topic of creationism though, did you guys realise there were still people that believed:
The earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it (including the sun)
http://healyhatman.blogspot.com/2008/06/worse-than-young-earth-creationists-are.html
And people that believe the earth is flat?
http://healyhatman.blogspot.com/2008/02/kidding-right-earth-is-flat-in-21st.html
'Tis true, people I consider crazier than the average YEC. Thought I should point that one out.
Oh and Niell I'm talking recorded history. As in literally absolutely RECORDED. You're making it a lot more difficult when it was at its heart a dead-simple question. To make it even more complicated and sound even less plausible, let's imagine that this extra-terrestrial species' definition of "recorded history" meant they had literally recorded, on video or in written accounts (before imaging technology was invented) every single day since their civilisation became advanced enough to reliably and consistently do such a thing and keep it preserved.
So, to explain again - because you consistently want to make this harder than it needed to be - the hypothetical species has literal recordings of several thousand (or hundred thousand) years of history. Every day.
Is that a good enough hypothetical marker?
Okay Healy, I'll run with your proposition and if such an extra-terrestrial with such a recorded history is located then we would have to review our position.
However, it is only a hypothetical being you have introduced to the discussion at this point. No such being is substantiated and the difficulty in space travel in reasonable time make the likelihood most unlikely.
Thus far we are on reasonable ground.
On the matter of the earth being at the centre of the universe, I advise that I don't reject the idea inasmuch as there Physicists of Creationist persuasion who propose that we exist in a bound universe and our solar system is somewhere near the centre of that universe. Certain observations in the universe are better explained through this model than are explained by an unbound universe.
To my knowledge it has not been demonstrated by any party whether we exist in a bound or unbound universe.
Flat earth? No way!
Neil Moore
Healy,
In my very first lecture as an undergrad in History and Philosophy of Science, my lecturer showed a cartoon that had an astronomer's telescope running from the earth, out to the limit of the solar system, turning around and looking back at the earth and the other planets and sun. The point was that the distances are so vast we can't actually see the heliocentric ss. It's just that our observations fit that model better than the geocentric one.
It also makes a lot more sense that the tiny tiny planet would orbit the big huge enormous star.
You don't have to defend these people just because they're fellow young earth creationists.
Come on Healy, I don't defend people because they're "on my side". I defend the truth. This is why we are so "at war" with the Sydney Anglicans because they preach a non-Christian worldview.
And I wasn't defending the geocentric people but merely pointing out that the scale of the "inspected" object does not lend itself to direct observation. I believe that we are in a heliocentric ss because the evidence seems to fit the model. A model of heliocentricity is not on the same scale as a "directly" observable phenomena as, say, photosynthesis or engineering a house frame.
Similarly, events such as non-life giving rise to life 4.5 bya is neither an observable event nor a repeatable event. Evolutionists believe that they can infer the event from existing data but it clearly is a case of question-begging religious belief here.
Given the data, I know there is far more force of argument behind heliocentricity than abiogenesis. At least we can "travel" to the edge of the ss. Since no one has invented a time-machine or seen life rise from non-life today then evolution is really thin on everything a good theory should have.
And this, Healy mate, doesn't even begin to grapple with the biochemical LAWS which theoretically and empirically tell you that it can't happen.
Laws such as what exactly?
Healy, mate, sorry for the delay but I've been involved applying for a new job and it's been all too consuming.
But basically(!)...life only uses L-handed optically active amino acid polymers (will the scientists on this blog forgive my sloppy layman description?). Theoretically and experimentally, stochastic (i.e. evolutionary) chemistry produces racemates i.e. approximately 50% L and 50% R-handed. A racemic mixture is inevitable in evolutionary chemistry and cannot produce the correct stereo-chemistry that life ACTUALLY uses.
Biochemists know this about the laws operating on earth and thus are searching the universe for an exception to this universal law.
On biochemical aspects alone, evolution CANNOT work.
Would one of the scientists on this blog please direct Healy to an appropriate site? Thanks.
And of course the hundreds of thousands of biologists just ignore this "fact".
Why? You can't say "because they're atheists/satanists" since there are Christian evolutionary biologists as well.
Btw do you mean evolution or are you talking about abiogenesis? Because they're different topics you know.
Healy, I don't know what motivates scientists to believe as they do but it is my understanding that what John has presented concerning stochastic chemistry still stands.
If you are aware of a refutation I would be interested to know because I would need to look at the work.
Neil Moore
Healy, "And of course the hundreds of thousands of biologists just ignore this "fact".
No, actually biochemists are well aware of it. That's why they've given up on earth and are looking to the heavens to find exceptions.
BTW, it's great to see how you dealt with a scientific problem: you ignored it and made it out to be a non-problem.
Your point about abiogenesis and evolution being 2 different things avoids the issue. Any biochemist can show you, anytime, that stochastic chemistry only produces racemates and not the optically active substances. As I said, it's not just tried and tested empiricism, but well-understood univeral laws. It's the way the world actually works.
The point is, if one cannot get the right biochemistry going - and SCIENCE says you can't - then evolution is no longer a workable idea, archaeopteryx, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, fossils upon fossils...notwithstanding.
Ignore the problem, Healy, but it is a major hurdle for evolution.
You see, if the right biochemistry just happened to be produced (and let's forget about all the problems that arise immediately after) by stochastic chemistry, then we have a one-off event, that went against all law, it was never observed, it's not repeatable, had absolutely no scientific evidence for it, then, ol' son, we have magic pure and simple. And you say that a Creator who manipulated the chemistry, as any biochemist can, is ridiculous.
No, actually biochemists are well aware of it. That's why they've given up on earth and are looking to the heavens to find exceptions.
You got any numbers on the percentage of scientists in relevant fields deserting evolution and putting forth "God did it" as a scientific explanation?
With the evo/abio question I was asking to which of the two you were referring to.
Not sure I'm following you on the stochastic chemistry angle. Stochastic as in a series of randomised steps starting from a known initial condition?
Secondly are you claiming that because only half the molecules created by said process are of the correct handedness evolution can't exist? What specifically is it that you're trying to say thanks :)
If the chirality of life's amino acids is left-handed and the presence of right-handed ones inhibits the polymers from forming, then yes, life can't even begin to occur according to the evolutionary story. Biochemical laws and obervations evince this clearly.
So you are talking about abiogenesis then?
John was talking about what is commonly known as chemical evolution. The September 1978 issue of Scientific American was specially devoted to evolution, and one major article was ‘Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life’ by R.E. Dickerson. This stated:
‘J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from non-living organic matter.’
More recent evolutionary propagandists try to drop the e word with terms like "abiogenesis", but this is to cover up the fact that it's a huge problem for their materialistic faith.
Healy, John knows exactly what he's talking about. Resolving a racemic primordial soup into the optically pure amino acids and ribose is a huge and unsolved hurdle for chemical evolution.
Healy,
The importance of scientific laws being universal can't be stressed enough. One fundamental component of the modern scientific enterprise is this universality of law. This cannot be demonstrated - it's a presupposition - but it is essential to science's proper functioning, even if it is for pragmatic reasons. (BTW such an axiom arose and could only arise from a Christian worldview.)
So, the evolutionist solution to the biochemical racemisation dilemma is to throw away this principle of universal scientific law i.e. a law operates the same whether on Earth or on Dave Lankshear's planet Zygon, and say that there must be exceptions to this well-known and understood law.
You know what word you give to exceptions to scientific law?
It's called a MIRACLE.
(BTW such an axiom arose and could only arise from a Christian worldview.)
What exactly are you banging on about in this sentence John? That the idea of scientific laws being universal could only come about from people who believe in Jesus?
Healy,
I'll briefly answer this and then you must stay on the point about optical activity.
The belief that a supreme God made a universe that runs according to universal laws is a Judeo-Christian worldview. Polytheism, atheism (e.g. Epicureanism), animism, Islam (particularly as a result of Ghazali's attacks, although the roots of rejection of science are endemic to Islam), Buddhism, Hinduism....all reject universal scientific law, though for different reasons. Modern atheism has been living off borrowed [Christian] capital for some time now, but the roots of modern science were founded on a biblical worldview, a rejection of Greek fatalism, the world is not an illusion, cause and effect, etc etc.
To understand the point one must be able to distinguish between mere technology and real investigative science. The Australian Aborigines had technology but there were no Koori Newtons or Boyles.
I'd be most impressed if you could point me to another philosophical worldview that mirrors this presupposition.
May I suggest you make yourself familiar with Stanley Jaki, and in particular, the Jaki-Duhem thesis.
The belief that a supreme God made a universe that runs according to universal laws is a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Bam. There's your first problem. I'm not sure you can understand why it's a problem though.
You said that the idea of universal laws requires a Christian worldview, then you go on to say the idea of a universe created by a supreme God with universal laws... I wasn't talking or asking about your fantasy view of the universe and you didn't imply originally that that was what YOU were talking about.
plenty of cultures may have had more than one God, but a lot of their religions began with one Supreme, Ruling or Father/Mother God who started the universe. Without more research I couldn't tell you if the superstition of a single ruling current God began with Judaism but I can tell you that the idea that the universe is bound by certain rules and was begun by a single creator being is by no means unique nor is it derivative of your particular mythology.
As to your consistent ramblings about abiogenesis having problems that mean that evolution can't happen, the only problem I see is that not enough research has been done into a field that is by definition and age exceedingly difficult to pin down. However, what you as a potentially rational adult need to understand is that even if the specifics of abiogenesis are never discovered or even if, somehow, evolution was disproved completely, that does not mean that the only explanation is young earth creationism. You presupposition that if evolution fails young earth creationism somehow "wins" scientifically is as intelligent as it is un-clichéd.
As to your carping on about this huge disaster for abiogenesis, I'm still waiting for the link you said you'd provide. As untrusting as I am of anything purporting to be science and coming from a creationist propaganda website I'll still read it for the shits n' giggles it'll most likely elicit.
Moving on though, how can you think that your religion and your particular religious view is the correct God-ordained one when Christians world-wide can't even agree on the basic tenets of their belief system? When Islam has overtaken Christianity, when there are so many thousands of sects and belief sets all regarding the same religion? Hardly sounds divinely inspired - surely more people should hold to one set of beliefs and understandings. Unless you God just wants you all to kill each other until the winner is left standing alone on a broken shoreline.
Healy,
May a much older man counsel a much younger man?
Didn't I suggest that you read a little Jaki? OK?
1. Healy said "plenty of cultures may have had more than one God, but a lot of their religions began with one Supreme, Ruling or Father/Mother God who started the universe."
True monotheism is a very rare belief structure. I do stand to be corrected, but I can't think of a single culture outside of the Christian-Judaic religion that has pure monotheism. And this is the problem with polytheism, regardless of whether they had a "supreme" being or not: The gods were always, like men, in struggles with each other and inconsistent in their actions. Thus, there could not be universal action by deity in these worldviews.
Fatalism also played a deathblow for science, "supreme" being over other gods not withstanding. Possibly the best example of fatalism are the Greeks. Their belief in the Great Year, a repeating cycle that meant all things were fated to happen again, killed off the science project because people weren't motivated to search for answers in a life which was doomed to repeat itself and over which they had no control.
Furthermore, in some religio-philosophical scheme like Epicureanism, the "swerve" that the atomists had to invent to explain the variation we see in the world was causeless, unpredictable and pure chance. These three attributes, as I am sure you understand, are not exactly a viable starting point for the science project which requires causality, predictability and universality.
2. If you reject my point re the reason why science began, then please offer us your thesis. Gainsaying is hardly constructive and I believe you to be far more intelligent than that.
3. Healy writes: "You presupposition that if evolution fails young earth creationism somehow "wins" scientifically is as intelligent as it is un-clichéd."
Fancy words, but hardly an argument. No less than an evolutionary hardliner as Shapiro disagrees with you. He said something along the lines that logically it must be the case that either it is evolution or design (I have the actual quote at home and I couldn't find it on the Net at work!). Now, you may want to argue as the AngloHeretics irrationally argue that an Intelligent Being would surrender His intellect and oxymoronically "create" by chance. However, since I can't begin to imagine why or how intelligent people would willingly and consciously give up acting intelligently, why would I even bother to waste my time pondering the Supreme Scientist doing it.
Now since intellect is measured by accuracy AND speed of task completion, genuinely intelligent beings do not as a matter of definition do things slowly, poorly (i.e. riddled with mutational mistakes) and uncompleted, these three equating to evolution's project.
So, it seems to me that it's an either/or situation. However, I stand to be corrected. Give it your best shot!
3. Healy wrote: "As to your consistent ramblings about abiogenesis having problems that mean that evolution can't happen, the only problem I see is that not enough research has been done into a field that is by definition and age exceedingly difficult to pin down."
This statement proves you do not understand the problem.
It's not a matter of research. Biochemists fully grasp the theory behind optical activity and daily experimentally work with it. As I recall it's how penicillin works and what caused the Thalidomide disaster.
Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say evolution's functioning depended on heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones. No one in their right mind would waste a further shekel on research to find an exception to the universal law that heavy and light objects fall at the same velocity and accelerate equally.
Now, evolution's occurring does depend on an event that cannot happen by chance chemistry. Optical purity cannot occur by unassisted chemistry, and it's absolutely crucial to life's arising. This is why all attempts to find an exception on earth have failed and it is the sole reason why the abiogenesis project has gone into space. If biochemists thought that there was even a snow flake's chance in hell of finding an exception they wouldn't have turned it into an outer limits' project. There would have been no need for it.
4. As for your concluding point, allow me to answer it another time or one of the others may take your challenge up.
Healy,
Here's a fairly reasonable explanation I found. I was actually looking for A.E. Wilder-Smith's lectures. You may want to do your own google on Smith. He's now dead but was instrumental in reviving this argument that I believe was a discovery of Pasteur.
Smith had 3 earned PhDs in biochemistry and was an academic of the highest order, yet he too was a young earther, firmly believing that there was sufficient scientific evidence to support such an argument.
I also over the last 20 years have come to see that my former evolutionary science was false. I didn't make the change on any religious grounds but on scientific facts alone.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3405.asp
1. Just wiki "monotheism". And remember that just because you have one God doesn't make your religion the best.
You also say fatalism dealt a "death blow" to science. When was this death blow and why do we still have science?
2. Do you mean the reason science began as in when I said that the idea that a scientific view of the universe can only come about through Christianity was bullshit? Because it is. Greeks got there first then the Muslims helped to safeguard that knowledge... until of course conservatives and fundamentalists appeared, took over, and pissed it all away. The point is also helped along by the fact that democracy didn't come about through a "Christian world view" either.
3. No idea who your "evolutionary hardliner" is and I don't care. It's not evolution (as some of us currently understand it) "or" Young Earth Creationism. It's not "science OR magic". I probably couldn't explain this to you in a way you'd understand though.
As to why a creator being would give up his time and allow things to progress naturally when he could do it instantly... Isn't he supposed to be a CREATOR BEING? OUTSIDE of TIME? So time is meaningless (especially since he's eternal) so, to him, time means nothing. Whether he gets it done in 6 days or lets it happen and watches makes no difference to an entity for which time has no meaning. Doesn't the bible say something along the lines of "1 day is as a thousand days to the LORD" ?
As to why a presumably intelligent being would give up the opportunity to do and instead choose to watch... Do you have a television or do you live in the past? Millions of people, some of them even intelligent, watch romances instead of going out and making romance. They watch slasher films instead of killing people. Action films instead of becoming vigilantes, football instead of becoming professional sports-people. Maybe he's doing it as an experiment, or because he wants to sit back and watch to see what happens, or maybe BECAUSE HE CAN? As arrogant as you lot are surely you can't be as arrogant as to claim to know the mind of your God and what he's thinking and the reasons he apparently does things.
3. No you misunderstand the problem. Abiogenesis and evolution are different fields. They're related, yes, but they're not the same. Tis like rejecting gravity because it doesn't yet fit with quantum mechanics. they're related, they both describe aspects of the universe, but they don't (yet) work together. It's not a matter of giving up.
Now, you went and said the following which I will have to correct you on:
This is why all attempts to find an exception on earth have failed and it is the sole reason why the abiogenesis project has gone into space
Read more. Try high school Earth and Environmental Science. Just one example is research into so-called "black smokers". Just ONE example, mind you. There was a documentary recently on the Discovery channel (or maybe Nat Geo) dedicated to research into abiogenesis - ON EARTH. It covered everything from how in certain conditions simple cell structures can be spontaneously formed to investigations into aforementioned "black smokers" and it went on from there. Abiogenesis research has not "failed in all attempts on earth" and has not "gone into space". It's also not "the abiogenesis project" in the same way research into evolution isn't "the evolution project" and so-called 'research' into flood geology isn't called "the Noah project". Abiogenesis research is constantly expanding. And of course they're going to look into space - ignoring a (scientifically) plausible source is not something SCIENTISTS do.
Okay I read a bit of that link. Pretending for a moment that it's not from a ridiculous creationist propaganda website known for spewing out useless drivel with disturbing regularity, I'll consider the probability factor. Okay? I've considered it. Now you consider the billions of years science says it took for the first simple (simple) life forms to arise. Then consider the size of the planet and the volume of available materials.
1. I have no idea how wikipedia's entry changes what I said.
Re Fatalism, "we" didn't have science when fatalism ruled, as I said. The birth of the modern science movement in Europe 500 or so years ago has no parallel in any other civilization. The Principle of Sufficient REason says there must be a cause for this i.e. it didn't occur in a vacuum and that there was a reason and no other reason.
2. Dave wrote: "Do you mean the reason science began as in when I said that the idea that a scientific view of the universe can only come about through Christianity was bullshit? Because it is. Greeks got there first then the Muslims helped to safeguard that knowledge... until of course conservatives and fundamentalists appeared, took over, and pissed it all away. The point is also helped along by the fact that democracy didn't come about through a "Christian world view" either."
A comment like this is obviously from someone who hasn't taken any History and Philosophy of Science and Technology courses or read a single book on the subject.
I suggested you read a little Jaki who carefully explains how Islam's science project, like the Chinese, like....were all stillborn, if in fact that they even began.
Read the medieval Ghazali and his, as I recall, 'The incoherence of the philosophers' and you'll understand why science fizzled out in Islam.
Find out why 'Occasionalism' killed science.
You could also read a little Islamic theology and discover why Muslims would never have been scientists unless the West had influenced their thinking about God. (As an Arab friend of mine said once to me, "Do you really think we Arabs, who were riders of camels in deserts, would know a thing about architecture or anything else before the Jews and Christians taught us?")
Greeks had science! Please, tell us all one useful and correct scientific theory of chemistry, physics...the Hellenists discovered. Have you ever read Aristotle's works?
You really don't have a clue about the Greek mind, do you. Have you actually read anything on this subject or are you just spouting the usual uninformed atheist bile and ignorance that tries to pass itself off as truth?
3. Sorry, Healy, don't understand your first paragraph here.
Black smokers don't help the problem. Can you explain what the products of volcanic vents have to do with life on earth as we know it?
As I said, it's not a question of time, there are well-known, well-understood laws operating. Matter obeys these laws. If you say that the first chemical forms didn't, you have to say why a universal law was set aside, once, has never been observed to do so since. Your protestations notwithstanding, exceptions to scientific laws ARE magic!
Laws are just not waived according to the dictates (and desperation!) of materialist fancy. Materialists demand scientific integrity and consistency from creationists, so quid pro quo to you.
So you're saying that yes only Christians could have come up with science? I only just woke up so your other talkings can wait.
But, modern chemistry, physics and biology are not the only things that can be called science. Consider Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, from Athens, ~470BC. It's all on 14 June's New Scientist, page 50.
So, please tell us how Anaxagoras' philosophy assisted the modern science project.
Also tell us how Anaxagoras scientifically demonstrated his views on the universe etc.
John & Healy in considering what you both have written a quote from an historian of science came to mind. I could not remember his name for days but just this minute remembered it. The historian's name was Dr Loren Eisley and he wrote a book entitled 'Darwins's Century: Evolution and the men who discovered it.' Garden City, New York; Doubleday, Anchor. On page 62 he wrote 'The sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds.... The philosophy of experimental science....began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.'
I am well aware that one quote does not win a war. However you can see that in giving testimony to the historical facts Eisley, as a non-Christian is puzzled by the paradox that today's scientific method, which supposedly has little to do with faith, sprang out of Christian faith, came from the thinking of faithful creationist Christian men.
There are those who try to force a wedge between Christianity and science, a wedge with no historical foundation, as Eisley so clearly demonstrates.
Sorry warwick it's a nice quote but you have to agree it in itself doesn't clearly demonstrate anything.
Then, Healy, how do you explain the incomparable rise of science in Europe 400 or so years ago?
Healy it does demonstrate that the scientific method which has given us amazing medical/technical/scientific progress was developed by men who firmly believed in Biblical creation. The quote is an acknowledgement of this historical fact. If we take a look at the history of the modern scientific method, the names familiar to people,such as Keppler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Ray, Steno, Burnett, Kircher, Barrow,Mather, Hooke, Harvey et al were creationists Christians to a man.
This conclusively proves that their faith in the creator God was no hindrance to their being pioneers of modern science. In reality, as Eisley attests, the oppposite was true; it was their faith that set them on this course.
This of course flies in the face of atheistic indoctrination which often promotes the false idea that Christianity in someway is alien to and opposed to science. Some research will show you that Christians are a growing significant minority in all areas of scientific endeavour.
I remember many such situations where an evolutionist said that evolution was the backbone of scientific endeavour. Specifically there was a time when this was said in the presence of three Christians who (unbeknown to the evolutionist)were all employed in scientific research. They each replied that evolution took no part as their work in 'hard science', which isn't about beliefs but about experimentation.
We of course concur that we cannot prove Biblical creation by the scientific method as it happened in the past and God is not likely to do it again so as to put it to our scientific-testable, observable, repeatable method.
Likewise we cannot use this same method to prove that microbe to man evolution is a fact as it is also not testable. Both are beliefs about the past.
People today are told that evolution is a fact and that real scientists accept this. However an interesting insight into reality is contained in the following quote:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior committment, a committment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phennomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in th door...'
This from genetics Professor Richard Lewontin who is a fierce neo-Darwinist was in the Ney York Review of books in January 1997.
Yes yes blah blah blah.
The first quote you posted does NOT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT SCIENCE COMES FROM CREATIONISTS. It's a quote claiming that some guy claimed something. The quote doesn't include references and proof, it just makes a claim without backing it up. It, therefore, does not clearly demonstrate more than that someone said something at some point.
People are told that evolution is a fact. So what? Evolution itself IS a fact - we can observe it happening. Evolution as an explanation for the current state of biodiversity is the theory. Just like gravity itself is a fact, the explanation of gravity is a theory.
Why are we still arguing about this anyway nothing anyone ever says or shows you people will ever get you to change your minds that your bronze age collection of scrolls is simply a collection of stories and not a history or scientific lesson. Whereas I am prepared to believe in your jealous, vindictive, bastard "god" the minute he comes down and shows himself. And the minute I see a dinosaur fossil with a harness attached (that isn't fraudulent), just like the discovery institute says. Scientists change their minds when new evidence comes to light - you lot however ignore everything that in the slightest why can be construed as an attack on your precious superstitions.
Oh, Healy, child,
Back to where you began. You are an intellectually dishonest young lad. If you can't stick to the point and argue the point then this is really no place for you. All of us here have at least 3 decades on you. As I told you before, you've barely begun to walk. Your great attempt to prove your point is to quote Wikipedia and then, what was it, New Scientist.
Go away and do some reading. We've all been through your stage of life - thinking you've worked everything out and you just couldn't have got the big picture wrong.
In the end, if evolution is true and there is no God, then we're all just dust. You may live tomorrow, or the next day, but eventually you'll rot in the ground and 2 generations on there will be no one to weep for you. You are, when all is said and done, a big fat NADA.
Take that thought to bed with you this night!
So, maybe the most important thing in life will be that you got one thing right: evolution is a fact!
Yep, the lonely, empty, bleak, universe cheers you.
When you want to actually intelligently respond to our points feel free to debate us. I pointed out the serious problem of abiogenesis and you..well, what exactly did you do?
Healy John is right you are being intellectually dishonest. I gave a quote from a hostile witness, with all relevant reference details. However you dishonestly dismiss this as 'some guy claimed something.' Are you just some guy who claimed something Healey because I do not know who you are, I have no references with which I can investigate you, as you have with the well known historian, Eisley. Do you actually exist? Who knows?
As I said a quite doesn't win a war but what Eisley said was just his honest acknowledgement of historical reality. It is not my opinion nor the opinion of anyone that the scientific method began with the Christian scientists I named. You can deny this but it carries no weight. It would equate to me claiming Charles Darwin didn't write Origin of Species! Fantasy Healey, pure fantasy.
No Healey gravity is a law of science as it has been tested over and over and shown to have no exceptions.
Evolution conversely, though called a theory, is in fact an hypothesis as there is no way it can be tested, no way it can be falsified. You will surely disgaree then be so kind to step away from cheap words and tell us how we can prove in the laboratory that life evolved from non life, and further how a reptile could evolve into a bird. Remember I am asking for you to suggest a laboratory experiment to prove that it is equal fact along with the easily testable gravity.
Remember that Professor Lewontin-reference- 'Billions and billions of demons', The New York review of Books, January 9, 1997, p31.-admits that it is not proof that causes him to believe evolution is fact but that materialism is his starting point, therefore a priori ruling out supernatural creation. Maybe you with your scientific qualifications know more than him? Please illuminate us.
BTW the evolutionist scientist Schweitzer tested T-Rex bone which has blood cells within, good evidence for its 'recent' origin. If this evolutionist did actually test this T-Rex bone, and if I could give you the references would this convince you Healey or would you just reject her as a fraudster? Yes or no?
I'm sorry warwick I must have missed the part where you posted a reference along with your quote. I'll scroll down and check...
Look at that. You referenced a book. A book I don't have and probably knew I didn't have. Even better, the book was published in 1962.
All you've shown really is the quote from the book. A reference would have been something to show where he got his information from. A description of how he came to his conclusion would even have sufficed. Yet all you gave was a quote that "clearly demonstrated" the views of an author 46 years ago. That view, by itself, doesn't "clearly demonstrate" your point whatsoever. And even if it did, the origins of science don't bear much relation to the direction it takes now.
Now John - I assume you're trying to make me feel depressed by saying no one loves me and the universe is cold and empty, as if I'm going to break down and cry, begging Jesus to be saved. The problem though is that I ca deal with the fact that the universe is cold, dark and empty. Unlike you I don't need to invent imaginary friends and an imaginary shoulder in the sky to cry on to accept it. I don't need an imaginary God to use as my blankie to huddle under so that the universe doesn't seem so scary. I can accept it as it is without invisible intangible contrary friends.
Now on to your points. In what way did her results suggest (TO HER and not to a bunch of creationists) that the T-rex was buried in Noah's Flood? Go ahead I'll erad your quotes but you must understand if it comes from creationontheweb or answersingenesis I'll probably pay as much attention as to all the other bullshit on that website.
Now, gravity itself, as I said, is a fact. There is gravity, we can feel it, it's a fact. GRAVITY AS AN EXPLANATION IS JUST A THEORY. Gravity is by NO MEANS a SCIENTIFIC LAW. You claim to know so much about science you should have known that bit.
Evolution is a fact. We can observe it in nature, we can induce and observe it in the lab, it's a fact. EVOLUTION AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS A THEORY.
Also stop equating evolution with abiogenesis. You're the one being dishonest treating similar yet SEPARATE research subjects.
Healey I must be smarter than you as I Googled the Eisley reference I gave and it came up with 1,580 hits! Now why didn't you think of that?
Healey you are all talk. You wrote:
'Evolution is a fact. We can observe it in nature, we can induce and observe it in the lab, it's a fact. EVOLUTION AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS A THEORY.'
No Healey evolution is not a theory, simply an hypothesis, as no test exists that would prove it wrong. Conversely gravity is a law; The Universal Law of Gravitation, as no exception has ever been shown in testing. Things on earth always go down, never gone up or hung in mid-air-therefore a law. This is taught to students in year 7.
If Evolution is a fact then it must be testable. Please move on from empty rhetoric and explain how it can be tested in the laboratory.
How do we observe microbe to man evolution in nature?
'Also stop equating evolution with abiogenesis. You're the one being dishonest treating similar yet SEPARATE research subjects.'
Healey you are probably right in that in the evolutionary myth this 'process' had nothing to work upon until 'sproing' dead chemicals became alive. But where did the genetic information come from to produce self-replicating life? It isn't a property of chemicals.
Things on earth always go down, never gone up or hung in mid-air-therefore a law.
Helium balloons. Planes. Magnetic levitation. Hot air. Helium near absolute zero temperatures. Water in a curved bowl when you spin it. Using your "year 7" definition of gravity, they all defy it. Of course it doesn't disprove gravity but 'tis not the point.
Also, Newton's "law" is outdated now. Please refer to general relativity. As an example of why Newton's laws are not laws but are theory, there are several problems with calculations that don't stack up to real and observed phenomenae when using Newtons "law"
Besides, even Newton's "Law" only explained one aspect of gravity. It doesn't completely explain it all. For another example, it doesn't help in the slightest in explaining how to use the equations for gravity in small scales (such as in quantum mechanics).
Investigate more. Gravity is called a theory.
Healey you say some ridiculous things. By your definition when I jump in the air I am defying gravity! Get real.
Now it is you going blah, blah, blah in an attempt to evade answering my questions, which are:
Please explain how microbe to man evolution can be tested by the scientific method of testable, repeatable, observable. Unless you can do this then you are just full of hot air. No pun intended.
Also you claim we can observe microbe to man evolution in nature.
Please explain!
ps an admission that you were wrong regarding my Eisley quote would be proper in the circumstances.
Several admissions on your part would be the thing to do as well you know. For example, I never said those things defy gravity, I clearly stated "Of course it doesn't disprove gravity but 'tis not the point." You jumping doesn't defy it either since you come down straight away.
I also never said "microbe to man evolution" in nature. I said evolution. As in, micro-evolution which from your arguments you don't even believe in either. Even with the numerous (NUMEROUS) examples that can be found. Asking me to give an example of microbe to man evolution is particularly stupid of you, as you should know, since by realistic (read: not based on interpretations of bronze age nomadic texts) time frames we haven't been around long enough. Also since there's no reason to believe that everything does evolve from microbes to advanced primates. But I do favour the genetic evidence you discover from analysing the DNa of humans and chimps - things such as the regulation of Vitamin C and virally added segments.
As to how you could test microbe to man evolution in the lab - I doubt it can be done to a level that would satisfy people like you. You creationists wouldn't be satisfied unless scientists took microbes and over a period of a couple of billion years evolved a full human. Which is ridiculous because even given enough time there's no way of knowing the exact evolutionary pathway required to get from microbes to an advanced primate.
I doubt the evolution of novel structures and anatomy would satisfy you, such as the lizards placed on the abandoned island that evolved larger jaws and different stomach arrangement to go from an insect to a fruit diet. I'm sure you have an explanation about how growing larger jaws and a new method of digestion correlates to a loss of genetic "information".
I haven't checked the quote you're talking about... Is that the one where you said a quote from a 42 year old book no longer in wide circulation clearly demonstrates that only young earth creationists could have come up with science? Just one example to bust that little fantasy - would you say advanced architecture was a science? Say, the building of huge structures that would be difficult to replicate even with today's technology? Or do you mean that only creationists could have come up with the idea that the universe works by a set of rules?
You like to talk a lot of crap about evolution not being testable, repeatable, observable. Please hold your BFF InvisiMan to the same standard.
Healey thank you for the admission that microbe to man evolution isn't capable of proof by the scientific method. Of course it isn't and neither is Biblical creation as they are both beliefs regarding past events which are not happening today. BTW microbe to man evolution is only a term I used to define what I am talking about. I and others use this term as most people who believe in evolution, like you, wrongly believe that natural selection brought about by conditions such as you pose, prove living creatures such as man evolved from so called 'simple creatures such as microbes or bacteria in the distant past by naturalistic forces.
If we were to take 1000 wolves, split them into two groups of 500 and place them on two disctictly different islands, one very hot and one very cold, then we would see changes in population as those who already had the ability to survive, would breed. I am sure you would agree that those already with thick coats and long legs would handle the cold and snow best while leaner short coated ones would handle the heat best. This is not evolution at all but testable, repeatable, observable natural selection.
Yes and then after the short furred wolves in the icy regions all died out, and the cubs born with short fur never survive long enough to breed, and all the wolves in the icy region end up born with thicker coats... That would be micro evolution.
And that doesn't prove macro evolution - that's why macro is "just" a theory. I won't go into what makes macro evolution a scientific because you don't believe in any of it.
Quick question though about your beliefs as a young earth creationist - what mechanism caused Rodinia (then Pangea and Gondwanaland) to break up and have all the countries move to their present positions within 6 months? And what evidence do young earth creationists point to to say it happened that quickly?
Healy responds: "Now John - I assume you're trying to make me feel depressed by saying no one loves me and the universe is cold and empty, as if I'm going to break down and cry, begging Jesus to be saved. The problem though is that I ca deal with the fact that the universe is cold, dark and empty. Unlike you I don't need to invent imaginary friends and an imaginary shoulder in the sky to cry on to accept it. I don't need an imaginary God to use as my blankie to huddle under so that the universe doesn't seem so scary. I can accept it as it is without invisible intangible contrary friends."
PLaying God are we? Imagining that you can read my mind and my motives? A bit arrogant from someone who is still in nappies! I was merely pointing out the existential reality of your belief system. If you aren't man enough to handle it...oh, yeh, I forgot, you're still a lad...oh, in that case, if you aren't boy enough to handle it, don't come crying to us!
In any case, nice try, Healy: Turn the implications of your belief system around as though we've constructed it! Grow up! This is exactly what you believe, isn't it: Work 65 years, receive the pension for 15.3 years, die at 80.3and then be cremated, kids cry - if you are evolutionary fit enough to have any or if anyone bothers to turn up - grandkids ask kids what was Healy like....3 generations later someone walks through a graveyard and perchance reads an inscription, "He believed everything was just luck", your ashes are sucked up by an apple tree and 50 years later a Chinese guy eats an apple which has an atom of potassium which once formed a section of your anus and then this guy takes a crap and passes this atom down to a Shanghai sewer and a pig eats it which....
No, son, I wasn't trying to bring you to Jesus - I was just showing you EXACTLY how soothing your worldview is to your soul. In your immaturity, don't ever blame us for your pointless life's philosophy created by a nobody called Healy. This is what your materialism entails. Become a mature atheist. Grow up and be proud that you are going to die and no one will give a Chinese pig's turd about you!
I don't need it to be soothing to my "soul" John. Your juvenile appeal to emotion isn't an argument so much as an expression of your disbelief that there are people that don't need to believe in invisible space magicians to make the universe less scary. People that accept that this life is the only one we have and that there's not an invisible Jewish space monster that loves us even though he never calls.
As one quote roughly equates to: I never existed before I was born, what matter to me that I won't exist after I'm gone?
Additionally, I don't recall "crying" to anyone that there's no afterlife. I don't recall blaming you for the lack of an afterlife either. I also don't need to be "proud to die" whatever that is supposed to mean - atheists are not suicide bombers and Jihadists you ignorant YEC.
You say I'm in nappies, from the composition and tone of your last message perhaps you're in the advanced stages of alzheimer's because as old as you claim to be you most assuredly sound like your "adult" brain has started to disintegrate. Whereas I'm in nappies for being too young, you give the impression of being in them because you can't control the shit that bubbles up from your bowels.
Healey now we are getting somewhere!
Regarding the wolf example you admit: 'that doesn't prove macro evolution....'
Of course it doesen't as it is not evolution at all but natural selection. It has nothing to do with microbe to man evolution. Actually it's the opposite as it obviously involves a loss of genetic information in ther population. meanwhile back at the ranch going from microbe to man obviously requires bulk amount of new specific genetic information.
We see micro all arounds us and this was first discovered and reported upon by a Christian. It in no way contradicts Genesis creation and gives no support to naturalistic evolution. Macro evolution-one kind becoming another-is not seen, cannot be tested so is not a theory but a belief.
You wrote 'I won't go into what makes macro evolution a scientific because you don't believe in any of it.'
Try me I may just surprize you.
Healey as I understand it as regarding Pangea etc it isn't about evidence but belief. We both have the same evidence. We were not there to see it happen and it's not happening now so we can only surmize. Hoewever you believe there is evidence for your view what is it?
For micro EVOLUTION (not your highly annoying "loss of genetic information" bullshit) I gave the example of the lizards that evolved larger stomachs capable of digesting fruits and larger jaws. You are yet to explain how that is a loss of genetic information.
And we're NOT getting into what constitutes evidence for macro - that conversation was 50-60 comments ago we don't need to go back into it again.
What do you mean (regarding pangea) that it's "not happening today" ? You do realise, right, that the continental plates shift a few cm's to a few metres a year? As to the evidence, aside from the fact that all the non-recently-formed landmasses (i.e. not including geologically-recent volcanic islands) slot in together roughly like a jigsaw with jagged edges. There's geological evidence where a rock strata that ends on one country will appear with the same layers as another section on a distant country. There's common flora and fauna fossils between landmasses that were joined.
So what's your evidence?
Healey to the best of my knowledge there is not consensus regarding plate movement, especially regarding the distances moved. I would guess that you are assuming that if a plate moves 20cm in a year today then it has done the same for countless ages. Right? Is it not just as reasonable to assume that any current movement is just the slowing down of much faster movement in the past?
You are assuming that the present is the key to the past which is fine, as we all work upon assumptions but shouldn't extrapolate them and claim that this is proof of our view.
As regards your lizards evolving comments please supply references.
I don't remember any evidence for macro evolution. Give me a hint. Remember evidence isn't proof and we all have the same evidence. Facts don't speak for themselves but are interpreted via the individuals world-view.
Healy wrote 'I gave the example of the lizards that evolved larger stomachs capable of digesting fruits and larger jaws. You are yet to explain how that is a loss of genetic information.'
I asked him to provide references for his story and he hasn't been seen since! Does this suggest he was being less than honest, or just repeating some story he was told, or has he been away.
I think it fair to suggest he has no references for the story unless he provides them very soon.
I believe he is confused, not understanding how natural selection works. Some believe that an individual animal adapts to a physical situation and has therefore evolved. As I understand it adaptation occurs within a population where some individuals already have what is necessary for survival, survive, breed, and thereby pass on this survival attribute to some of their offspring which are therfore equipped to survive. Those not so equipped die out.
Loss of genetic information: Those who already had the survival advantage gainied no new genetic information and the genetic information of those eliminated was lost. Therefore this is a nett loss of information, the opposite of that proposed for upwards microbe to man evolution.
But I wait for Healey's answer!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061117124514.htm
Another lizard evolution one
Healey thanks for the link. I had a read and came to a conclusion but to be sure phoned a research scientist friend who works and writes scientific articles in this field,to be sure.
What is described in the article is not technically evolution at all but exactly what I have covered with you a few times. As the article says this is adaptation to a changed diet over 36 years. You need to understand that this in not about any lizard evolving but a population change due to a change in diet. Like any adaptive process some creatures will survive in certain changed situations, better than other creatures of the same kind. They therefore have a survival advantage which gives them an advantage when it comes to breeding and so their genes get passed on and over a time period the population will consist of the 'great-great grandchildren of those who had this survival advantage in the first place.
Some evolutionists have confused people by renaming adaption or natural selection as micro-evolution when it has nothing to do with microbe to man evolution at all.
For microbe to man evolution to occur requires the creation of large amounts of specifically coded genetic information, not a selection of some existing information.
It isn't that one is a part of the other but that they are two opposite things.
Evolutionists claim that this new genetic information comes about via mutations which are accidental genetic copying mistakes. The very idea that incredibly complex organs can come about by hopeful accidents is foolish. Remember in the evolutionary story a mutational change will only be retained if it adds survival advantage. How could a part-formed non functioning eye, for example, give any advantage? Only a person unaware of the amazing complexity of the eye and its three systems of camera, image transport and image interpretation system could imagine such a thing ever happening.
Nice way to dodge the issue there.
In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
It doesn't have to be microbe-to-man evolution for it to still be scientifically classified as evolution. What you and your buddies are trying to do is take the most obvious, provable, proven parts of evolution science out of evolution and, for your own purposes, call it "just natural selection".
Micro evolution, Warwick, is defined as "the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level "
What you're essentially trying to do is take everything that is readily identifiable as micro-evolution and claim that it's nothing of the sort in a pitiful attempt to make evolution as a whole less appealing. Because you know that micro-evolution occurs and if one section of evolutionary biology works then it's a huge threat to your world-view and needs to be eliminated.
You can go on calling it "just natural selection" all you want, but we both know (well, at least you should know) that it is also termed "micro-evolution". You fighting against a commonly accepted definition and it's most likely not going to work.
TO REITERATE
Evolution is NOT... is NOT, Warwick, NOT.... defined as "the increase in complexity from one generation to the next". It is NOT "microbes evolving over a period of time into humans". Just accept the fact that microbe-to-man style evolution that you parrot creationist lines about is also termed macro-evolution, and the natural selection and species adaptation you would be all sorts of idiotically stupid to try and deny is termed micro-evolution.
Changes in a species and changes of a species are both considered, scientifically, to be the exact same process, the only difference being time. The micro- and macro- prefixes are there to simplify discussions on the topic, not as some sort of anti-religious propaganda attempt by an atheistic conspiracy seeking world domination.
Try and base your arguments on more than just a vain attempt to narrow the scope of evolutionary biology. Because without micro-evolution, there can't be macro evolution. Species don't undergo drastic changes (such as evolution of birds from reptiles) in a single step. It takes many small (GASP, MICRO!) steps.
Oh and your "scientist friend" didn't explain very much to you. In what way, Warwick, is lizards "naturally selecting" for larger jaws, skulls and a NEW DIGESTIVE SYSTEM not an example of evolution? Remember to try not to claim that micro evolution isn't really evolution.
Now, the eye? It has to be whole to function? Psht to that.
Scientists hypothesise that early vision receptors came about through mutations the certain types of skin cells (such as touch receptors, just as an example) that changed their abilities from touch, cold, heat, whatever to being able to sense changes in light levels. Those cells, whilst not fully functioning eyes, still conferred a survival advantage because the organism would be able to tell if something had moved between it and the light, such as a predator trying to eat them or prey for them to eat.
The eye example is an oft-refuted one typically used by creationists as part of their "irreducible complexity" arguments, none of which I have heard of actually sticking.
Healey natural selection was the scientific description before anyone called this process evolution. However call it evolution if you like but it does not support the proposed evolution of life from microbe to man.
As explained before speciation and natural selection was investigated and understood long before Charles Darwin come on the scene. It was discovered by a Christian (Mendel) and the scientific method we use today is the product of Christian thinking.
So if evolution 'is NOT "microbes evolving over a period of time into humans". How did the different kinds appear? By lizards with larger jaws being selected? Surtely you jest?
What you call micro-evolution occurs and is obviously not denied by creationists. But what you call macro-evolution does not occur.
You talk about theories of how the eye evolved as though that shows what did happen. You are confused.
Consider that the eye is made up of three totally different systems all amazingly complex in their own right:
1) The eyeball itself which is useless without-
2) The vision/sensation transfer system which is obviously useless without the eye-ball and-
3) The brain programming to process the incoming information. Which in itself is useless without the other two.
When adults who have been blind since birth have sight given to them it takes their brains quite a while to make sense of the images they are seeing. And this with the vision part of the brain intact, that part which was designed to process vision.
But you talk of light-sensitive skin cells which would have been useless until all three different systems were working together and at the same time. Do you get that Healey the whole shebang is usless unless the whole machine was up and running at the exact same time as there would be no survival advantage until the system was fully operational. Therefore any light sensitive skin cells would not have been retained as they gave no advantage.
Just in case you have missed the point even if light-sensitive cells arose by mutation(and this has never been seen) those cells would be useless unless there was also a transport system for sensations and a part of the brain ready to interpret them. Just does not hold up to sceptical analysis!
healy as I mentioned I spoke with a research scientist friend far more knowledgeable that I on this subject. Always a good thing to have peer review!
Below is the text of an email he sent which I am sure will interest you:
'Subject: ATP synthase problem for evolutionists.
Warwick,
Every living thing has ATP synthase, a nano-motor comprised of a dozen different proteins (including the necessary ancillary membrane pumps, etc.). This electric rotary motor is so small, 100,000 could sit side by side in a mm. It is driven by an electric current comprised of hydrogen ions (i.e. a positive current in contrast to our electron-driven negative current motors), created by a gradient across the membrane where the motor is embedded. Now as this motor turns, it produces ATP, which is the chemical compound that produces energy for all sorts of essential life functions. For example, if you move a muscle or make enzymes to digest your lunch you use ATP.
Now “Hey presto!”, the first cell had to have ATP synthase to function. But the protein synthesis to make the ATP synthase needs ATP. Catch-22!
One could argue also that the proteins to make the motor have to be specified in the information on the DNA, but the reading of that information requires over a hundred proteins which are also coded on the DNA, but the reading and decoding to make all those proteins cannot happen without ATP!
The idea that life just made itself defies every tenet of modern scientific knowledge. It is a product of blind materialism, not rational thought.
Bless ya!'
Healey do you get the point? Like the eye this system does not function until all its components are functioning, at the same exact time. Everything has to be in place from the very first instant. Therefore life could not evolve in steps.
Doesn't occur eh?
So are you saying that if you make lots of small changes, given enough time and enough changes it won't average out to a big change?
Now for your ATP example, as usual I can't make myself trust anything scientific coming from a person who, like yourself, is really only concerned with destroying science and replacing it with "God did it" but every other example of irreducible complexity has been shown to be bullshit. I'll (maybe) look into it. For example bacterial flagellum, the little "motors" that drive them, have been shown not to require all parts for the parts that were there to have a function.
Back to your eye problem - if it's a mutated receptor (pain, heat, cold, force etc) it already has a pathway to the brain. Or not, you should probably realise the earliest life forms didn't have a central nervous system. Which you won't, because all animals came onto earth at the same time from a magical garden in the near middle east when the world was one supercontinent that magically flew into little pieces within 6 months.
Healy you continue to expose your bias and your innability to listen to reason. I passed on written comments from a scientist friend who has more than 25 years experience in this field. I did not say whether he is Christian, Hindu or atheist. You foolishly jumped to that conclusion.
You ignore what a highly qualified research scientist has written partly I think because you don't comprehend the obviousness of what he has said. And mostly because it disproves your view. Anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong!
Let me quote from another research Scientist with two doctorates in molecular biology:
'The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.'
So what do you say about what this research scientist says Healey? Will you also say: 'I can't make myself trust anything scientific coming from a person who, like yourself, is really only concerned with destroying science and replacing it with "God did it".'
Healey your understanding of what you call micro-evolution leaves a lot to be desired. What you appear to be proposing is that your lizards each evolved new unique genetic information so their jaws grew biggeretc by some method you do not explain.
In reality a population of creatures will adapt to changing conditions or die out. If some of these creatures already have the ability to survive e.g. long thick fur on a wolf in a cold climate they will get to breed and in time the population will be made up only of this variety. This is a 'conservative' feature which deletes the genetic variability in the population. It is therefore a loss of genetic information regarding those who died and no gain in those who already had the necessary survival feature.
In wheat growing as researchers strove to produce varieties which would produce more grain per hectare they did have considerable success. However these new varities had lost geneitc information, in one case the information that allowed them to resist rust. Rust returned and the crops failed. Researchers then went back to the original varieties and bred in the gene which gave rust resistance.
Therefore the selection changes of which we have written are not small additions of new unique coded genetic information, rather the loss of information and will therefore not add up to anything which is any part of the microbe to man story.
You say: 'the little "motors" that drive them, have been shown not to require all parts for the parts that were there to have a function.'
Where has this been shown?
Just google it or something Warwick.
And that's another example of intellectual dishonesty you creationists / anti-evolutionists employ. Evolution is also not termed as "increase in genetic information". A loss of genetic "information" that still constitutes a change in a species is still considered evolution.
And natural selection, Warwick, is the main process by which evolution works. Saying natural selection is different from evolution is saying like seeds aren't a part of the apple.
And yes evolution helped to modify many other segments of human society - it allowed people to realise that "God did it" isn't the only required explanation for how the world works, that if you want a scientific answer about the origins of life, the universe and everything you don't need to open up a book based on a bunch of scribbles by bronze age nomads.
Oh and your example of Mendel discovering / understanding evolution, you're a little wrong - it was genetics not evolution.
Healy rebutts the creationist argument with this astounding piece of logic: "Evolution is also not termed as "increase in genetic information". A loss of genetic "information" that still constitutes a change in a species is still considered evolution."
Incredible. Just imagine, guys, you take a little away, a little more, for long periods of time, and hey, presto, you get a lot more new genetic information. Talk about a free lunch. On Healy's account of things, just imagine, you could extract a letter a year from the Children's Webster Dictionary and after 4 billion years you'd get 30 volumes of Britannica, War and Peace, the UN Charter, Lee Kong Wu's 1933 Mandarin Dictionary and Aesop's Tales. Just imagine, we all could put $100 in The Commonwealth, receive negative interest, and by the end of this century be multi-millionaires.
It's a miracle, Healy.
You're a financial genius, Healy. A truly clever lad.
Nice try.
In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next
See that? Process of change - not "process of increasing genetic information". Evolution can go both ways and has been shown to go both ways so before you start raving like a meth addict why don't you read a dictionary.
Healy,
The evolutionary myth says that in the beginning life was simple. That is, there was little genetic information because there had not been sufficient time to make it. Over eons more and more information came into existence.
So, whatever constituted the first life forms, these surely were not coded for the extremely complex biological parts like 4-chambered hearts, brains, lymphatic systems etc etc. Now if natural selection does that i.e. selects from a pool of genetic information and loses what it does not select for, this is an overall nett loss of info, not a gain, which is exactly what the evolutionary myth demands must not happen.
What we'd like to know from you - and not some vague pointing to Wikipedia or some other site - is where can you clearly demonstrate, and by what means, that this necessary gain of new complex information actually came about. Show us the present proccesses that evince this. If yours is scientific then we must be able to see the proccesses in action, now, today. Creationism is scientific because we argue that the proccesses do not occur and we don't see any proof they do. That is, we do not see any process that produces new information. Information Theorists have long known that theoretically and experimentally new information just doesn't pop into existence. Evolutionary biologists have long struggled with this because it demonstrates in one hit how their pet religious theory of origins can't work.
Evolutionists love to imagine they present the evidence but what they present is a circular argument and one that doesn't really address the question, namely, 'The increase of new genetic information must occur because we wouldn't be here if it hadn't.'
A variation on this type of petitio principii is that 'The increase of new genetic information must have occurred because the fossil record shows an increase of genetic complexity and fossils could not increase in complexity unless the requisite new genetic information had come into existence.'
Creationism is scientific because we argue that the processes do not occur and we don't see any proof they do
Thankyou. Really, thanks. I mean, I thought as a young earth creationist you knew fuckall about science, but then you go and say that so no, John, I won't be doing any of your shit for you that you can google yourself, because I'm going away for the weekend. As in I will finish this sentence, add a link to an easy-to-understand answer, press publish, pick up my packed bags and go.
http://asktheatheist.com/question/can_chance_produce_information
Healey I gave you a quote from a double doctorate molecular biologist research scientist but you didn't slag off at him. Why?
Do you imagine your crude language offends or impresses anyone? It just suggests you are arguing with your brain disengaged.
Healy,
Are you brain dead? You must be if you think this an answer, an answer to a point I never made i.e. straw man.
I never said unqualified information. Read my qualifying and evolutionary necessary adjectives attached to the noun 'information'.
I've quoted in full the text that Healy believes is the answer. I just love the guy's use of Big Brother as proof that evolution can create novel information.
Listen Healy, mate, I gave up doing pot, LSD and cocaine 20 odd years ago. I suggest you do the same. It does wonders for your intellect.
Rereading the answer, I reckon the atheist has been doing way too much acid and bongs. Why don't you write to him Healy and suggest he should lay off the drugs.
Healy's contribution to the debate:
Can Chance Produce Information?
Submitted by Healyhatman on Tue, 2008-05-06 23:00.
Question:
Can chance produce information? Is the question a Christian asked on his blog. I know I've seen it before and it's a poor argument but unfortunately he keeps inventing reasons and extra additions to show information can't come from chance. The whole argument and his question is here: http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/can-chance-produce-information/ A definitive answer to throw back would be greatly appreciated.
Atheist Answer
It's been a little while, and the Crazy Australian has in fact conceded that chance can at least produce something which we recognise as information. This Australian says, good on him.
This question is a common creationist approach. The application there is that information in a genome is not seen to increase after random recombinations. The response is that new information can take the form of a decrease in data as well as an increase (my usual example is that the valuable information each week on Big Brother is who will leave the house) so a recombination, which is partly both, is definitely an increase in information.
Completely random threads of information would indeed be unlikely to come to anything meaningful. Consider that, by the way: information, as defined in a computational sense by those who wish to manipulate, compress and optimise it, need not be meaningful in any sense other than representing the data of which it is comprised.
A bit of real-world pressure makes all the difference; this is the very core of natural selection. Changes to a genome which are harmful, ambiguous or negligible tend to die out when the living beings carrying them are outbred by beings carrying directly beneficial changes. It doesn't matter what the information in the genome means as such. Only survival value is of importance, and as it happens, information coherent enough to represent blueprints for complex structures like wings and stomach acid has substantial survival value.
You know, the real answer to this question is really extremely simple. Yes, chance can produce information, if there is such a thing as information. Chance can produce anything, given the right conditions. That's what chance means.
Applied to anything real, though, the true question is, "Can chance consistently produce information?" That's a little hairier, but it's moot when applied to evolution. Natural selection is not a chance process. It mines the random element of mutation for new genetic material, but the selection itself is the original Survival of the Fittest.
It's like rolling fifty dice and only picking out the fours, fives and sixes. You're guaranteed a fairly high average score per selected die. The game of evolution is rigged in favour of life.
- SmartLX
As Healy pointed us to the above "answer" as proof against our case, then he must admire his guru's pearl of wisdom: "The game of evolution is rigged in favour of life."
Stop it, I say stop it Guru Atheist, your sagacity is killin' me.
Gee whiz, we must see life poppin' up everywhere de novo and ex nihilo completely overthrowing that crazy Redi's idea and empiricism that life only begets life. And what would ol' Louis have to say about that?
I suppose evolution could be more precisely compared to a crap game rather then just any old game.
Here's an example for you John.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
But Healy, why should I bother chasing you? You don't answer any questions but prefer to childishly and dishonestly evade the points. When trapped in a corner you abuse.
You already provided a link which was not even worth the electricity I used to log onto it. We've given you a number of sites and rather than check the information out and do some research, like a responsible adult would do, you make a few platitudinous ad hominems, and then scurry away.
Either lift your game and be a man or remain an intellectual pigmy and I, for one, will ignore you. You're becoming a time waster.
Healy, Healy, Healy, we had such high hopes for you.
I looked up that site and couldn't believe that you believe that was an answer to the points we made.
1. Myer's starts his 99% correct explanation off with vacuous qualifying phrases like, "Life PROBABLY started with no chromosomes" (strange, I thought if something didn't have chromosomes it wouldn't be called life! A minor detail, I know.), "perhaps....". Of course these hypothetical riders are soon forgotten as he gathers steam.
You see, when people use expressions like 'probably' to introduce an argument it means they have zero evidence for their following case. It's just a way of misdirection, similar to the ones good magicians use as stocktrade tricks to let your gaze fall elsewhere. If there were an iota of evidence for this section of his argument don't you think Myers would have provided it? There would be no need to say 'probably' or 'perhaps'. You would just say that it has been observed blah blah blah.
2. Do you notice that in his diagrams of the chromosomes he begins with A,B,C,D,E genes, calls into existence a,b,c,d,e genes to match up to these, tells a story, and still has ABCDE genes at the end.
Now the question that we would ask is, how do you get WXYZ genes (i.e. completely new information) to appear by chance.
Well, I can see how he got M and N genes out of ABCDE - he just artistically penned them into his story. That is, he got completely new information - let's call this new information the stuff that codes for 4 chambered hearts, cerebral cortext, ptyalin, insulin, toe nail chemistry, hemoglobin - by getting his red pen and scribbling in M and N. The guy's a genetic scientific genius. See, there's no need for God to call information into existence, this Myers guy can do it with his magic marker!
3. Which brings me to the most important point.
Mers concludes with this statement: "There are many ways genetic information can be REARRANGED on chromosomes."
Did we say something different?
We asked how do you get a whole Grand Canyon full of NEW information, with coding, with the correct stereochemistry etc etc. That's what we asked you, not what Myers was talking about.
Creationists who work as geneticists know and use what Myers discussed every day in the lab. No Creationist would have a problem with 99% of what he said. This is not the problem for evolution that we highlighted. OK?
Sorry John I stopped after your first paragraph where you pretty much say only things with chromosomes are life.
As to the "probably", it was a few billion years ago john - too long for any genetic information to survive. I doubt that anyone will ever truly know exactly what form the first life took, exactly how it came about, exactly what it was composed of. So they will always be theories and hypothesis'.
As to a previous "point" you made - about how SmartLX used Big Brother to "prove his point", it's called an analogy.
Like I said though I no longer need to bother explaining anything to you because your given reason that creationism is scientific shows a complete lack of understanding of what the term "scientific" even means. Run along and let Warwick take over he's much more amicable.
Healy responds: "As to the "probably", it was a few billion years ago john - too long for any genetic information to survive. I doubt that anyone will ever truly know exactly what form the first life took, exactly how it came about, exactly what it was composed of. So they will always be theories and hypothesis'."
In other words, no one saw it, no one has any emprical evidence to support it, but it must have happened because evolution is true and we wouldn't be here if evolution were not true.
And you still haven't explained how new information comes into being by chance chemistry.
Tell us - or ask your guru - how non-material coding arises.
I suppose you don't have to because evolution is true and we wouldn't have the coding today if evolution weren't true.
So, no one has ever seen coding arise by chance chemistry, no one has seen new information arise, no one has seen the correct biochemistry arise, no one has seen life arising, no one has seen anything that the myth evolution demands must have happened in order for it to be true, all because it happened so long ago and no one was around to see it, but what the heck, I'll believe it anyway because that's what you're supposed to believe when you don't believe in an Intelligent Creator. There is no evidence for evolutionary abiogenesis but it has to have happened because my faith in matter would be destroyed and I would be forced to believe in the alternative worldview that an Intelligent Designer extrinsically placed biological information into matter, information which obeyed strict laws and coding. Yep, that's a completely unacceptable idea because I don't like the idea of that because I prefer the idea that matter can do anything, that it just happened because it had to happen, despite no evidence supporting it.
You keep spitting out the same tired old platitude that the only alternative point of view to evolution is young earth creationism. You really need to get that checked out.
As to all your anal questions - well I can't really be bothered right now John. From the way you continually speak down to me, going so far as to tell me to commit suicide, you're no longer someone I feel the need to argue with. You've shown yourself for what you truly are on many occasions since this all started. So I shall no longer deign to notice you on this thread, which has been going on for far too long.
Don't try and take it as an intellectual win however John - you've just sprouted so much hate-filled bullshit and scientific misunderstanding I no longer feel any effort to reach through your thick skull would ever impress itself upon your tiny creationist brain. It would be wasted energy.
Creationism is scientific because we argue that the proccesses do not occur and we don't see any proof they do.
That one line, to me, shows exactly why the effort is wasted on someone like you. I seriously doubt any evidence would ever convince you that the bible is anything but a scientific history lesson to be taken literally.
Don't cry too much about me not answering your questions John - no one ever answered the Distant Starlight question, or the question of how the continents moved to their positions in 6 months. Taking the bible literally as you do John do you believe that science is lying when they say that the moon reflects light from the sun instead of being an actual light, like your literally true bible calls it?
But yes I won't be replying to You any further John because you just don't get it and even if you did you would deny it to your last breath.
Healey the word used to describe the moon and the sun in Hebrew means 'light givers' which does not suggest they are of the same substance. They both do give light, don't they? If you spend time in the country away from city lights you will see how amazingly bright moonlight is.
Interestingly scientists say our moon has the highest albedo (light reflectivity) of any object in the solar system.
As regards distant starlight I suggest you go to www.creationontheweb.com and put Hartnett in the search box. Read to your hearts content or get a copy of Dr Hartnett's book 'Starlight, Time and the New Physics.' It is a good answer to the problem. It may be a little too technical for you.
While we are talking about answering questions what about a comment on the quote I gave:
'Let me quote from another research Scientist with two doctorates in molecular biology:
'The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.'
What do you say of this?
What do I think about evolution influencing more than just biology? I think it's fine. There are plenty of practical applications for evolutionary thinking, from the design, synthesis and discovery of new medicines through to computer technology (evolutionary software, evolutionary design procedures, etc).
I also think religion had its turn as the sole "explainer of everything" and it's late by a few hundred years in moving aside.
As to practical applications for the "science" of young earth creationism though there are none that come to mind. What predictions can be made using the "theories" of young earth creationist biblical literalism? The world is far less interesting to me if the answer to its existence is a simple "God did it".
Finally as to your sidestepping regarding the moon problem : it doesn't matter if the proper translation of the bible says the moon is a light giver - it's not. That translation is probably even worse for the side of the literlist because calling it a light at least allows one to interpret it as saying "object from whence light seems to appear". But, you yourself are the one who said it's translated as "light giver".
A better way to describe the moon, if the bible were full of scientific facts instead of easily misinterpreted fluff, would be if the bible described the moon as like a mirror, reflecting the light of the sun. Maybe some poetic imagery about reminding people of the sun at night time. But it doesn't describe the moon as a mirror, it quite specifically calls it a light source.
Another interesting point - I used to live in Girilambone which is close to be as "in the country" as one can get.
Oh and I checked your quote about the moon having one of the highest albedos in the solar system... turns out it's actually 7.2%
Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, has one of the highest known albedos of any body in the solar system, with 99% of EM radiation reflected.
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm
The moon appears as a relatively bright object in the sky, in spite of its low albedo. The Moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system and reflects only about 7% of the light incident upon it (about the same proportion as is reflected by a lump of coal).
Healy,
Someone may have sent this to you before but here is an answer to your insistence that bacteria mutating to use citrates is an example of upward evolution.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827
Healy,
A link for you re information etc
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
Oh, sorry, Healy, I hadn't read that you're no longer paying me any attention.
To the others, re my suicide remark. My wife, whose fourth language is English, immediately understood my point i.e. on Healy's own admission on another site, life is short, death is inevitable, life is full of pain and you need pain to appreciate happiness, I tongue-in-cheek suggested he follow the existentialists' solution by hastening the inevitable and commit suicide but before that I come over and give him a beating in order to increase his happiness level.
Now because Healy is so ready to put out with the tough talk but just can't handle it when it's thrown back at him, he can't see a little humour, humour that even a non-native English speaker could see was replete with irony.
Of course Healy's dummy-spit may be a tactic he uses to deflect attention away from the fact that he still has not intelligently answered the points I raised that seriously bring into question his evolutionary worldview.
Nice attempt at evasion Healey but the question was: what do you think of a double doctorate molecular biologist saying that evolution: 'is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence....'
Do you agree that it is a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence? Or is he just another of your biased creationists who don't know what they are talking about?
I will go back and check my source about the reflectivity of the moon. That, true or false, was just an aside having nothing to do with the fact that it is a light-giver.
Some times Healey in your attempt to duck the obvious you make yourself look so dumb! The moon gives light to the earth by reflecting the suns light. Are you with some sort of twisted logic trying to say the moon does not give light to the earth.
It is your interpretation that the Bible describes the moon as a light source just like the sun. It doesn't say that, it says it is a 'light giver', and that it does. Next point?.
BTW healey if you had even the least knowledge of Scripture you would be aware that it does give quite a few scientific facts. Such being that the earth is a sphere, hanginging in space upon nothing, that air has weight, that there are paths in the the ocean. this latter information gave the scientist (Maury I believe) the idea to experiment and so he did and found these currents which revolutionized sailiing as ships were able to follow these newly discovered paths and progress even in wind-neutral situations.
Remember Healey even atheists attest the modern scientific method was developed by, and first used by men who were convinced that Biblical creation was a fact.
Isn't it interesting that their discoveries were made without any use of or belief in evolutionary stories!
Not really Warwick - I mean what do oceanic currents and air having weight have to do with evolutionary biology?
As to your other points - it may have been highly speculative at the start of evolutionary theory, but it's been almost what, 150 years? We've come a long way since then. Especially with fantastic innovations like genetics.
You never said anything about my point about Mendel though (and this is a while ago) - you said something along the lines of Mendel understanding evolution when he actually made a theory about inheritance. His ideas weren't recognised til many years after his death, when his notes were discovered.
John thanks for the Stephen C Meyer link. I had to sit there for 10 minutes reading only to come to the paper's predictable "information" section.
Let me make this clear - holes in a theory, or things that are not entirely understood yet, does not equal "creationism wins". It means more research is needed. Just like "God did it" is not a scientific answer, nor is it a particularly interesting one.
There are a great deal of current origins theories your link fails to mention or discuss for a start.
As to your link about the bacteria evolving in the lab being a fraud or hoax... Why is it that you jump on me and other people who believe in evolution when we use the word "probably" and "possibly" but it's okay for you to use, as proof, a paper full of the words? These creationists have nothing. If you read the paper it's just a series of anti-evolutionary maybes and probably's.
Healy responds to a qualified PhD scientist's examination of Healy's belief that bacterial mutation proves evolution: "As to your link about the bacteria evolving in the lab being a fraud or hoax... Why is it that you jump on me and other people who believe in evolution when we use the word "probably" and "possibly" but it's okay for you to use, as proof, a paper full of the words? These creationists have nothing. If you read the paper it's just a series of anti-evolutionary maybes and probably's."
Now, Healy, as a qualified teacher I would fail you on this alone. Not only have you failed to see the difference between the two, you have then concluded with an ad hominem, one of the signs of desperation in a person who does not understand the argument and who has suddenly noticed he's out of his depth. For if you had not been so swept away by your bias (btw, I'm an ex-evolutionist, from the age of 6 until I was about 30, so I do understand both sides of the debate) you'd have been able to distinguish the two arguments.
Here's what Batten said:
"So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.
Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,3 which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell."
What is claimed about what may have happend is testable. One could knock out a few bases, for instance, and see if it produced the same result.
On the other hand, with your link, the probably's etc were about an imagined scenario a putative 4 billion y.a. How do you scientifically test that in the lab? You can't.
You see, it's actually you and your evolutionary mates who are practising voodoo magic, not science.
I'll respond to you John.
The link you gave me doesn't say anything whatsoever about what really happened - that's the "it's not clear from the published data, but what may have happened".
Key phrases here are 'not clear' and 'may have'. It's not a clear definitive failure for the evolutionary scientist.
Now you may not know this but the scientist who put out the results of his experiment had creationists (I think from the Discovery Institute) call him demanding his results. Demanding. He said he has the cultures in a lab and they could have a look at them in their own labs. Except the Discovery Institute is a bunch of offices and they don't have any.
All your linked people have done is have a look at the preliminary data and made a few biased guesses as to how they could spin the data to fit a creationist perspective. They even say they're not sure from what they've yet got. They also say a lot of "maybe" and "probably". So whilst they might be correct, they've currently got no idea.
Healey you are being a naughty boy! You wrote: 'if the bible were full of scientific facts instead of easily misinterpreted fluff,
So I just gave you a few scientific facts from the Bible.
Further you said: 'As to your other points - it may have been highly speculative at the start of evolutionary theory, but it's been almost what, 150 years? We've come a long way since then. Especially with fantastic innovations like genetics.'
Healey are you trying to fail your exam? The scientist who made the quote was talking about the present situation. He is alive and researching now. I imagine, considering his qualifications and his research experience, he knows more about the subject than we.
I wrote: 'As explained before speciation and natural selection was investigated and understood long before Charles Darwin come on the scene. It was discovered by a Christian (Mendel) and the scientific method we use today is the product of Christian thinking.
But you say I wrote: 'you said something along the lines of Mendel understanding evolution when he actually made a theory about inheritance. His ideas weren't recognised til many years after his death, when his notes were discovered.'
Once again Healey you are being a naughty boy, as you have misquoted me!
Incidentally if Mendel's research had been known and understood Darwins idea is unlikely to have got off the ground.
Why would mendellian inheritance have prevented the theory of evolution by natural selection getting off the ground? It wasn't until both ideas were put together that the theory started to make real sense.
Healy,
From your response re the citrate mutation,
(i) you don't understand what the original article said
(ii) you don't understand that Batten's critique stated that it wasn't exactly a hitherto unknown function
(iii) small changes at the level of bacterium is a normal event and doesn't help the evolutionary story
You also didn't respond to my point that what actually happened with the bacteria is a potential research project. Logically, there is nothing to prohibit investigation. However, with your evolutionary guru reply, what research project could you possibly "create" (or is that 'manufacture') to investigate abiogenenesis?
You'd have to watch a documentary or read some research papers on the internet to get a better idea of where abiogenesis research is going - and it most certainly hasn't "failed" and "gone to the stars because there's no answer on earth".
And in what way does the evolution of a bacterium not help the "evolution story" ? And why do you people keep insisting evolution is a religion, saying s in a derogatory fashion, and that evolution is a "story", when your own beliefs are based on one specific interpretation of an ancient bronze-age nomadic text?
That's something I really want to know - I've heard creationists including yourself John call evolution "nothing but a religion", as if religion is a bad thing. If evolution is "just a religion" and you're using it in a diminutive manner, what then does that make your religion?
Healy,
1. See Mary Midgley's 'Evolution as religion', for example. Should be able to get a copy at your library.
2. As I said before, evolution demands that well-tested, well-understood scientific LAWS of, for example, biochemistry are overruled. This is by definition a miracle. Any worldview which demands that scientific law must be set aside in order for it to be "sanctified" IS religious. After all, the coming into being of life and the correct handedness of biochemistry was not something that occurred at the beginning of the universe where, possibly, laws had not been set in stone, but well after that when law was operative and invoilable. That these exceptions to these laws has never been observed, can't be demonstrated, only occurred once, means it was a miraculous and hence religious event.
Evolution is a religious worldview!
Healy,
Furthermore, in order for evolution to be truly evolution it cannot have God intefering or even existing. That is, it truly is a naturalistic, materialistic, reductionist philosophy. These qualities cannot be demonstrated scientifically - they are metaphysical presuppositions about the world. Hence, the underlying reality of evolution is not physical but a belief system about what ultimately constitutes the universe. In this regard, like all religions, evolution is a religious worldview.
If you say so John :)
Actually, just some elementary 1st year History and Philosophy of Science stuff.
BTW, the search for stochastically produced optically pure amino acids has gone into space..some time ago now.
Healey many evolutionists talk about the 'creationist view' and the 'scientific view', as if one is just faith and the product of the scientific method.
In reality both positions are equally scientific and equally religious, being held to with passion and ardour. You only have to see the way ardent anti-God evolutionists such as Dawkins speak, with the heat of religion in his voice, and on his face, to understand that he is an evangelist for evolution.
The hatred directed at creationists in some quarters is agressive and intensley spiteful, truly reminiscent of unbalanced religious fanatics. I have seen the same looks and passion in arguments with Muslim's as they threatened to kill me when I had the audacity to oppose their faith.
Alex Ritchie who once worked in the paleontology dept. of the Australian Museum told me angrily that he would fire any scientist he found to be a creationist, no matter how qualified. Such religious zeal.
We also saw the same religious zeal from Ian Plimer the geologist who wrote the totally discredited book 'Telling Lies For God.' His religious zeal caused him to tell half-truths and outright lies in the effort to sell his warped belief.
I think it fair to consider evolution a religious view.
EQUALLY SCIENTIFIC you say. Equally fucking scientific.
I talked about your unhelpful attitude and sorry it's my turn - equally fucking scientific you say. My vision actually filmed red for a second there.
Tell me, Warwick. Give me an answer for what is, I think, the best definition for a scientific theory.
WHAT PREDICTIONS CAN BE MADE WITH THE SCIENCE OF YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM.
Healy the Pottymouth, get back to the public school locker-room you crawled from.
Darwin recognized that his theory would predict "innumerable" transitional forms, but they were missing from the fossil record. He recognized this, but had faith anyway. But even now, all we have are a handful of debatable ones. And even they disappoint, since one alleged intermediate between fish and amphibians had a reproductive system that was anything but intermediate—it gave birth to live young.
Predictions of YEC: amazing desighs such as motors, the ability of humans to learn from this design (biomimetics), the impossibility of chemical evolution to explain first life, paraconformities (smooth lines between different geological layers with no evidence of long periods of erosion showing that the surfaces had not been exposed for millions of years) ...
HealyPottymouth spruiketh:
"You'd have to watch a documentary or read some research papers on the internet to get a better idea of where abiogenesis research is going - and it most certainly hasn't "failed" and "gone to the stars because there's no answer on earth". "
Please tell us more. For example, please tell us how amino acids linked up in proteins, a thermodynamically uphill reaction. Especially when the Miller–Urey experiment produces them in such diluted amounts, and with a plethora of compounds that would hinder such polymerization. And tell us how we obtained 100% left-handed amino acids. If you like the RNA world theory, then please explain just obtaining cytosine from a primordial soup, then how the cytosine nucleoside could have been formed (neither have plausible simulations).
"And in what way does the evolution of a bacterium not help the "evolution story" ?"
How does it? There is nothing in the observed changes that have anything to do with changing it from a bacterium to a biologist; the change is in the wrong direction.
And why do you people keep insisting evolution is a religion, saying s in a derogatory fashion, and that evolution is a "story", when your own beliefs are based on one specific interpretation of an ancient bronze-age nomadic text?
In what scientific way, kt, does young earth creationism predict motors? That's not a prediction. I'm talking about phenomena we can observe in the future and test for.
Like placing zebra fish in a tank with predators and dark gravel we can predict the group will turn dark. Then if we put light gravel in we predict that same group will turn light. Then we can make them go dark. And then mottled.
And what do you know the predictions are borne out by observation.
If they lost the genes for one colour or the other, which is what you claim natural selection is, how is it they can change back
Healy I think you need to go back to square one on this issue by reading:http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480 This will help you to understand what qualified creationists believe.
It's written by one of those pesky Ph.D.research scientists who also happen to be Christian, creationist of course.
Healy I'll let Ktiso answer your blog but I will make one comment.
You said 'If they lost the genes for one colour or the other, which is what you claim natural selection is, how is it they can change back'
Eventually Healy they can't change back. If the genes have been bred out they are gone. As a living human example I once met an Australian family with a Chinese surname, but looking absolutely non-Asian. Being an inquisitive fellow I broached the subject only to be told that their Chinese ancestor arrived here in the early 1800's. He married a European, as did one of his sons, leading up to the family I met who were now by all visual indicators Eurpopean. All the Chinese had been bred out.
It is the same with so called pure-breed dogs who were selectively created until the offspring were all of the same appearance as the parents. If you breed two pure- breed German Shepherds for example, that's all you get.
Healy believes this to be a prediction of evolution: "I'm talking about phenomena we can observe in the future and test for. Like placing zebra fish in a tank with predators and dark gravel we can predict the group will turn dark. Then if we put light gravel in we predict that same group will turn light. Then we can make them go dark. And then mottled. If they lost the genes for one colour or the other, which is what you claim natural selection is, how is it they can change back."
I get it now, Healy. How stupid of me for not recognising it now. Let me tell everyone that evolution is truth.
You see, don't you get it now, guys? If the biologist did that to Zebra Fish for a million generation he will obtain an actual Zebra (i.e. the 4-footed, land-dwelling kind) or in a billion generations a Hegel or Bertrand Russell.
I don't know that actual experiment, Healy, but it sounds an awful lot like the exciting time they had with Peppered Moths. Of course, that whole exercise was a fraud so...hmmm...
In any case, surely Healy this is just an example of variation in a species responding to environmental pressures. You get an abundance of one type over another because of some factor in the environment, and then swaps around and gives the other better chances of survival. It isn't a prediction that lends credibility to amoeba to man myth but more or less supports what Mendel had discovered. It's nothing special not anything new.
Is Pottymouth so ignorant? His prediction (although garbled as Warwick says) actually supports the creationist-invented idea of natural selection, still an important part of the biblical Creation-Fall model.
For examples of when something can change back, see Let the blind see … Breeding blind fish with blind fish restores sight. I hope Pottymouth makes sure that he understands how creationists predict downhill changes after the Fall, that when natural selection fails, such downhill changes can accumulate, and that the original information for sight may not be lost but merely stopped from expressing.
You're making a lot of noise Kt about natural selection being invented by a creationist, can you please explain yourself further?
As to the peppered moths example John - it wasn't a "fraud" - the pictures you see of the people sticking the moths to the trees is to be able to take pictures of both types of moths next to each other.
Again though, you use Mendel - which was INHERITANCE, John, not natural selection. Mendel discovered INHERITANCE.
You keep going on and on about the examples scientists use as being "just natural selection" or "just animals responding to environmental pressures". Hopefully this is the last time I have to say this.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WORKS THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION, WHICH WORKS THROUGH (among other things) ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES.
Please read that again a few times John and stop trying to divorce natural selection from evolution.
Let me get this right Healy. You wrote
'THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WORKS THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION, WHICH WORKS THROUGH (among other things) ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES.'
Are you saying that from the first life which appeared to the present plethora of life-forms it is the process of natural selection which has brought this about? To be specific are you claiming that natural selection caused a reptile to evolve into a bird, for example?
I just want to understand what you are saying?
I didn't say that Mendel discovered Natural selection. What I was implying was that what Mendel did i.e. selective breeding, was equivalent to nature doing the selection. Mendel was providing the environmental pressure to the peas and in the Zebra Fish it's the predator and the biologist replacing the gravel.
My point is that Mendel's producing hundreds, if not 1000's, of generations of peas only delivered peas. Ditto for the Zebra Fish. Whether it's black or light-colourd fish or red or white pea flowers, I can't see how one is warranted in extrapolating from these observations to the belief that if you do this billions of times you'll get homo sapiens.
I'm not trying to divorce NS from evolution but I am asking you to explain how what really amounts to a loss of genetic information can be the nuts and bolts for a process (i.e. evolution) which states that there is an on-going INCREASE of genetic information i.e. information that when added to the genome of an amoeba will eventually produce homo sapiens.
If you want to simplify it that far.
Now John - the zebra fish, while there's not much time between generations, a few years worth is not long enough to make the zebra fish grow legs. But you like to say it's all a loss of genetic information. If so, how is it that the researcher was able to force them to change to a darker fish with dark gravel, then lighter with lighter gravel, and so on? Surely if natural selection can only work on a LOSS of genetic information the fish should only have been able to make one single change? According to your set of beliefs once they lost the genetic information and changed to one colour they should never have been able to change back again?
Now John you keep saying "microbe to man" and "you can't get a human out of this" which is absolutely true. Even if you bred billions upon billions of generations over millions of years, there's no guarantee it would follow the same path as our ancestors. The pressures will be different, the mutations are highly unlikely to occur at the same genes in the same sequence - given enough time you might get a completely different type of sentient species. You might not get a sentient being at all. There's no telling what you'd end up with.
Healy microbe to man evolution is a term used to describe the claimed process which evolutionists say lead from the first life, through countless stages until man appeared on the scene. It does not matter if by chance this unseen process should lead in another totally different direction. It describes multiple kind to kind evolution.
No one I know doubts natural selection but all the same we are aware that this process does not lead to the creation of totally new, unique genetic information such as would be needed to produce a totally different kind of creature- i.e. reptile to bird.
If a Zebra fish population did indeed react to a changing environment, then reverse that change if the environment reversed, this is not the addition of any new information, as explained.
In reality you began with Zebra fish and ended up with Zebra fish.
If you placed a totally pale population of Zebra fish in a tank with dark gravel and predators then it is unlikely that any would survive, all being pale and therefore visible to the predator. End of experiment.
I imagine, as in most populations of creatures, some were already dark, so camourflaged, so more likely to survive. Therefore able to breed. However it is quite normal for creatures to produce offspring in a range of shades This is what we see often see in nature isn't it?
However as with the breeding of dogs, for example, if the process, whether natural or human selection progressed far enouth then there comes a time when the population would be only one shade and no amount of environment change will bring back lost genes.
Of course there are creatures which can individually change their colour to avoid detection. However I feel confident that is not what you are talking about.
A few questions:
You have made no further comment about the Kaibab Upwarp. Unless you can show where my reasoning is wrong then I think it proper you admit this.
Secondly I asked: 'To be specific are you claiming that natural selection caused a reptile to evolve into a bird, for example?'
An answer would be kind of you?
I gave you the following link, did you read all of the article?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480 This will help
you to understand what qualified creationists believe.
BTW I gave you the quote below:
'The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.'
But you did not comment. Probably smart of you as the quote comes from a book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis' by Dr Michael Denton who holds two doctorates in Molecular Biology.
I am sure it will surprize you to learn that he firmly believes in microbe to man evolution but admits that 'there is no really hard scientific evidence' for it. Note that Healy not even 'evidence' let alone proof.
Is he some sort of scientific ignoramus Healy?
You have told me that you are wanting to understand creationist thinking and I have explained things in length and many times. It is now time for you to answer my questions. That's if you are genuine.
I did comment on that quote about evolution influencing things other than biology. I said I see no problem as evolutionary thinking has hundreds of practical applications in everything from medicine and architecture to software design and artificial intelligence. What practical applications does creationism give?
I also did comment on the Kaibab example you must have missed it. And speaking of not making comments... Albedo of the moon?
I went and read your link and it's complete bullshit. For example the "point" that many of the founders of modern sciences were creationists is completely and absolutely irrelevant. You probably won't understand why.
The problem with creation "science" is that instead of looking at the data and formulating a theory from looking at the evidence, it looks at the evidence and tries to apply and interpret it to a specific set of doctrines. Do you understand, Warwick? Your vaunted creation science STARTS WITH THE ANSWER instead of the question. You don't at all see the problem there?
The way your creation "science" works is to look at the bible, pick out how old the bronze age nomadic text implies the earth is, and then finds evidence that apparently supports it. As opposed to actual science that looks at the evidence and puts forth a date for it all. Scientists didn't decide to think of a really big number for the age of the earth and universe - they arrived at it through looking at the evidence.
I'm still reading that ridiculous link you posted and can I just quote this:
This has little to do with the belief that hydrogen changed into humans over billions of years.
Excuse me, but what?
And of course, your link ends with a paragraph quote mining and Jesus loving.
I clicked another link on the page you linked to, and came across ‘For the scientist, truth is never final. It is always tentative, always based on a finite amount of available information, and always amendable in the light of new information, of which there is no predeterminable limit.’
Yes. Completely different to creationists. The only thing I have seen change in creation "science" is that creationists put forth arguments, they're found to be total crap, then they're added to a list of arguments not to use. Things like "distant starlight problem can be solved by saying that the speed of light was faster during the flood".
And another thing. That page you linked to denigrated evolution because it looks at things that happened in the past and is therefore not testible or provable in any way. And yet, is creationism held to the same standard? Not likely. How about forensics? Should we ignore the corpse in the loungeroom because it happened in the past?
Anon wrote: "Now John - the zebra fish, while there's not much time between generations, a few years worth is not long enough to make the zebra fish grow legs."
This is where the blind faith bit comes into evolutionary theory. No one saw it but a fish millions of years ago had to get legs in order for us to be here and have the ability to walk. It's a very circular set of arguments involved is it not?
Anon wrote: "But you like to say it's all a loss of genetic information. If so, how is it that the researcher was able to force them to change to a darker fish with dark gravel, then lighter with lighter gravel, and so on? Surely if natural selection can only work on a LOSS of genetic information the fish should only have been able to make one single change?"
Whenever you kill anything off there is always a net loss of information because that organism's genetic information is permanently erased from the genetic pool.
That fish can change their colour in response to their environment depends on whether or not the genetic variability representing the 2 or 3 colour patterns happens to be retained. I don't know the details but maybe the fish that survive are only heterozygotes and can express the different colours depending on what genes come together in their offspring. That is, quite possibly, no matter how many fish were eaten, each survivor retains the genetic capacity to express either colour depending on what their partner provides. I'm not a biologist but I think I may be approximately right here.
As we have all argued, the problem for evolution is not about the ability to express a phenotype from genetic information a group of organisms already possess. The problem is how to get completely new information that will give rise to complexity and how to retain it if it doesn't have any present use. When you consider the humungous amounts of genetic instructions to build hearts and lymphatic systems and complex brains etc etc, why would a simple organism and its offspring retain it if it had absolutely no use for it. And when you throw in mutation rates and time and goodness knows what else, evolution just seems so fanciful. Dawkins' Mt Improbable becomes a Mt Impossible when you sit down and do the number crunching.
And don't forget: NO ONE SAW IT HAPPEN!
why would a simple organism and its offspring retain it if it had absolutely no use for it
Expand it out a bit there John. Why do whales retain the genetic information for the hips of a land animal, and the genetic information required to grow legs? Why would humans retain the genetic information for a tail? Or for gills in the embryonic stage?
And evolution seems so fanciful? It's funny when you read that next to "Space Jew who sent his son who was himself to Earth to remove the sin imposed by himself on everyone on earth because their ancestors ate an apple handed to them by a talking snake before they even knew the difference between right and wrong"
Oh what a seeker you are,not. I pointed you to an article written by a highly qualified research scientist and the best you can say is it's BS. What a thoughtful and lucid reply that isn't. How typical of the bigot.
The point you keep purposely missing regarding the Denton quote, as I explained as to a child, is that he is a highly qualified scientist, who believes in evolution, but admits it is without proof. If there was proof, as you insist, why would an evolutionist of such repute say otherwise?
You make no sense.
The fact that the scientific method we use today was developed by creationists demonstrates without any doubt that there is no disassociation between creationist thinking and hard(as opposed to philosophical) science. If you can't see that you are not too bright. Is that a statement of abuse? No an observation of your innability to understand even the most simple concepts. Or maybe-there are none so blind as those who will not see!
Healy you are a fraud. You say you wish to understand but abuse and defame anyone who disagrees with you.
You have defined that tomatoes are blue therefore red tomatoes are by your definition not tomatoes. And anyone who contradicts your untestable views is a fool.
Healey you wrote:
'As opposed to actual science that looks at the evidence and puts forth a date for it all. Scientists didn't decide to think of a really big number for the age of the earth and universe - they arrived at it through looking at the evidence.'
In actuality an ancient age for the earth was believed long before any scientific age-testing methods were developed. Therefore from day one they were based on untestable assumptions.
Back in the early days of earth-dating Lord Kelvin claimed the earth was between 40 million and 20 million years old. His personal 'preference' was for the lower value.
Of course he hadn't measured the age or he wouldn't talk about 'preference', would he?
His calculations were assumptions as obviously there were no eye-witnesses to these ancient events and he had no scientific dating methods at his disposal. He had
to make assumptions about the past, he had to assume a history for the earth.
He assumed the earth was initially a molten blob and calculated how long it would take it to cool.
He assumed such things as its
initial temperature, conductivity and reflectivity.
Because it is impossible to check his starting assumptions no one can claim he was scientifically accurate.
The assumption of an ancient earth began because geologists observed the rate things were happening around them and assumed (there goes that assumed word again) that these very slow processes were those which had always existed, those which had shaped the earth. Ever so slowly.
So rather than your brave new world of scientific testing we have deduction based upon uniformitarian assumptions, all untestable. Not scientific at all.
Today we have a multitude of dating methods, such as radiometric dating, which disagree with each other to great degrees, and once again are based upon untestable assumptions.
This is why wildly innacurate examples exist. Where there is no contradictory evidence these dates are assumed to be correct but when there is other evidence the dates are shown to be totally wrong. Such failures exist world-wide but my favourite is a site in Hawaii where about 200 years ago people witnessed the cooling of a lava flow, becoming basalt. This flow was much later dated a few times, by the Potassium-Argon method, giving ages from 130 million years to 3 billion years. That in itself is major error, but remember the rock formed only about 200 years ago!
BTW the Potassium-Argon methods 'clock' only starts 'ticking' when the lava is cooled. Therefore it is supposedly a measure of when the basalt formed, not the age of the lava.
This is like the finding of a piece of wood in Hawkesbury Sandstone which was dated,. by carbon 14,in the tens of thousands of years but covered by sedimentary rock supposedly tens of millions of years old! Whoops!
Do you understand Healey these dating techniques are based upon untestable assumptions and shown to be nonsense when contrary evidence is present. If you found a Coca Cola bottle in sandstone you would not accept the sandstone was millions of years old would you? But you would accept the age if nothing contradicted it wouldn't you? And you talk about scientific results!
You can read up on such as these, and many more, on certain sites but they are only BS and c**p written by ignorant biased creationists so why bother?
That is a good way of sweeping difficult facts under the carpet isn't it?
Do you imagine that evolutionist sites would publish information which so exposes the hopelessness and the gross errors of their much-vaunted dating methods?
Natural selection was proposed by creationists such as Edward Blyth long before Darwin. It is an observable fact that is part of the Creation/Fall model. It explains the origin of some varieties, e.g. why sometimes black fish and moths do better, and why at other times white ones do. It doesn't explain the origin of the information selected for.
Evolution has produced no advances in real science or medicine whatsoever. Most of branches of these disciplines were discovered by creationists.
Healy I was amazed to see that you brought up the peppered moths story, a proven fraud. Maybe next you will bring up Piltdown Man and my old favourite Australopithicus Harold Cookii! maybe even Lamarck will get a look in?
A little research disclosed that the evolutionary magazine Nature 396 (6706): p 35-36 exposed the whole peppered moth story as a fraud.
Others have said it isn't quite a fraud but that the whole experiment was flawed for a number or reasons. A main one being that the critters 'Biston betularia' don't hang around on tree trunks at all and further don't come out in daylight where they would be eaten by predators.
L Harrison Matthews wrote the Introduction to the 1971 version of Darwins Origin of the Species, where he made a telling comment.
"The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection-or survival of the fittest- in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.'
Just what we have been trying to tell you Healey. It appears to me you have studied a mixture of SMH, Hollywood and high school evolution and picked up an incorrect and outdated story. Having listened to the uninformed nonsene as taught by some science teachers I can understand.
Today we have a multitude of dating methods, such as radiometric dating, which disagree with each other to great degrees, and once again are based upon untestable assumptions.
Well actually no they don't Warwick. There are literally millions of verified examples of radiometric dating that agree with each other. All give results within a certain range of each other. And those untestable assumptions are based on multiple checking tests and the physical and chemical properties (which adhere to certain Laws) of the materials in question. There certainly aren't huge differences and thousands of false readings.
Evolution has produced no advances in real science or medicine whatsoever. Most of branches of these disciplines were discovered by creationists.
Would you include computer science as a real science? How about architecture which takes design and physics principles?
As to medicine, evolution has enabled biomedical researchers to understand more fully the changing face of viruses and bacteria, helping to create new medicines and vaccines. In researching the natural world for potential cures, evolution allows scientists to look at one species that contains interesting compounds, then (using the understandings of evolution to determine the nearest related species) investigate other related species that may have similar compounds.
Healy you wrote:
'There are literally millions of verified examples of radiometric dating that agree with each other. All give results within a certain range of each other. And those untestable assumptions are based on multiple checking tests and the physical and chemical properties (which adhere to certain Laws) of the materials in question. There certainly aren't huge differences and thousands of false readings.'
You are wrong.
The vital fact is summoned up in the saying; When rocks have a known age radioisotope dating does not work. When rocks are of an unknown age radioisotope dating is assumed to work.
What do I mean:
1) Hualalai Hawaii the known age of the basalt was about 200 years as eye-witnesses saw the lava solidify into basalt. K-Ar dating was used giving various ages from 160 million to 3.3 billion years. That is various tests on the same basalt, with the same method wildly disagreed- to the extent of 18,750 times! And you say dates agree!
However even this massive inaccuracy is small when the maximum date achieved is divided by the known date. The error is 15,000,000 times. And you say radioisotope dating is accurate!
2) Kilauea, Hawaii-known age by eyewitness reports is again about 200 years. K-Ar dating gave results from 0 to 22 million years. Accurate?
3) Mt St Helens- eruption date 1986 K-Ar dates from 350,000,000 to 2.8 million years! Healy if you did your tax this accurately we would have to visit you in Berrima Gaol.
3) Grand Canyon Arizona at the Uinkaret Plateau-six K-Ar tests gave ages from 0.10 to 17 million years. Unless my maths fail me that is from 10,000 to 17,000,000 years. That's an error of 1,700 times. Accurate?
One Rb-Sr Isochron test gave an age of 1.340 billion years. Does this agree with, or is it anywhere near the K-Ar ages? You know it isn't within a bulls roar of it.
Interestingly the Rb-Sr Isochron method was used to date rock at the base of the canyon about 1.6 k's down therefore in evolutionary terms hundreds of millions of years older. Age given- 1,070 billion years which means the base rock is actually 270 million years younger that the rock on the plateau! Man the canyon must have formed upside down then later turned over.
4) K-Ar dating of basalt drill core from Crinum mine Queensland- 36.7 million years +- 1.2 million years. Sounds ok and I am sure it would have been accepted only for the fact that the core sample had wood within it. Now obviously the wood had to be there first to be covered by the lava which cooled to basalt. The outside was charred but the inner wood was suitable for carbon 14 testing, giving an age of 44,700years +/- 950 years.
Just in case you don't get the point I will explain:
14C has a half-life of 5,730 +/- 40years which means that only half the original 14C will be present in about 5,700 years. It has been calculated that by about 60,000 years no measurable amount of 14C will be left. So if any 14C is still present then the timber is less than 60,000 years old. Therefore the 36 million years old basalt is actually aged in the thousands of years.
The same situation of wood with 14C present has been found in sedimentary rock in a number of places, including near Sydney and in the UK not far from Oxford.
The underlying assumptions of radiometric dating cannot be scientifically tested therefore it cannot honestly be said that these are scientificall proved dates.
If the results are wrong, and wildly so, when the actual age is known there is no honest basis to assume the dates are correct if the age is not known. As the saying gors: To assume is to make an ass of u and me
Believe what you like Healy but remember it's only belief.
Another example of terrestrial origins research
No Healy just a few examples of the truck sized holes in your belief.
But wait there's more.
Truck sized holes in my belief?
If there were only small hills pre-flood, where did mountain dwelling animals originate? Why are koalas and eucalyptus tree in the same single continent, and how did they get there? Why aren't they spread out further? In fact how did all the endemic species get to the countries they're in post-flood? Where did polar bears come from? How would they have survived getting to the Arctic from the middle east? What about frogs, how did they get to their countries (e.g. Australia) and how did they survive getting there from the middle east?
Saying the land was one continent pre-flood to explain how Noah gathered them all is all well and good, but how did they disperse post-flood? Not much in the way of feed would be available (both carrion and vegetation) and this is ignoring the fact that some continents are separated by thousands of miles of open sea.
What about fresh water fish? I don't think the bible says anything about those. How did they survive?
How about tropical fish? If you do in fact claim that Noah took fresh water fish with him onto the Ark, how did he regulate the temperatures in order to keep tropical fish alive?
Why isn't the entire earth covered with a layer of flood sediment? Why aren't all the cave systems filled with mud, places like Riversleigh should be impossible to tell from the surrounding area.
How did all the plants survive? Again, how is it that certain plants (AND ANIMALS) are endemic to certain locations when they surely could survive in others? Again, how did Koalas (slow moving) get from Mount Arrarat to AUSTRALIA?
Why aren't there the ruins of human civilisations (or human fossils) mixed in with dinosaur fossils?
You said a while back that in order to cut down on feed requirements he would have taken eggs or young - but some creatures (such as seals and sea otters) need adults to teach them how to hunt and swim, or perform a range of other biological functions.
Reiteration - how is it that animals with very specific ecological requirements (mist frogs, frogs in general, Arctic/Desert/Mountainous/Plains-dwelling creatures) get from the desert to where they needed to be without dying? You need to realise a lot of animals require huge amounts of feed and are unable to move very far in a day.
Animals that are shown to have evolved exclusively in Australia aren't found (either living or fossilised) anywhere else. How does this fit with the pre-flood world?
In Genesis, Cain gets sent of to the land of Nod where there is apparently a city there waiting for him. How, who lives there?
Immediately post-flood, were there any deserts? Wouldn't they all be covered in sediment or shifted around? Where did the desert animals live until deserts return?
Lastly, with only 2 members of the "unclean" species, how is it that the populations didn't die out from too much interbreeding? Ask any conservationist - 2 animals is not a "viable breeding population".
Healy address my blog regarding radioisotope dating. Show me where I am wrong.
Then I will be very happy to answer your list of questions, most of which I have answered over and over, starting decades ago.
You are amazingly poorly read. I can only imagine you have come up with this tired old answered many times stuff by trawling anti-Biblical sites. You guys are so predictable, it's like dealing with recalcitrant children.
As said I will be happy to answer your questions but I want you to carefully, in detail answer my radioisotope dating information.
It's all BS, c**p and youse is all f*****g morons will not suffice.
You are amazingly poorly read. I can only imagine you have come up with this tired old answered many times stuff by trawling anti-Biblical sites. You guys are so predictable, it's like dealing with recalcitrant children.
Actually I made them all up on the fly :) But I do love that word, recalcitrant. One of my favourites.
As said I will be happy to answer your questions but I want you to carefully, in detail answer my radioisotope dating information.
Yes because I am a geophysicist. I'll have a look at it anyway.
It's all BS, c**p and youse is all f*****g morons will not suffice.
Sorry, find where I talked with such poor grammar. Also, why are you self-censoring the word crap?
Healy I will wait for your answers regarding radioisotope dating.
The questions you raised are not new they have been asked over and over for decades. Sometimes I tire of answering the same old questions. Most are on anti-God sites i have looked at.
If you had a good concept of speciation/natural selection you could answer many of the questions you asked, yourself.
Youse is all.... A spot of humour Healy just reflecting your stated contempt for the creationist view. I always censor crude language which crude people use. That's my privilege.
I have a good concept of natural selection, I just don't see how it applies to moving slow-moving landlocked animals from the middle east to Australia or how it has any relevance to sloths finding their way to South America. Or how it helps frogs get from the deserts of the middle east to rainforests worldwide, especially when there are only 2 of each species.
Let us just leave that until you show me where I am wrong with what I wrote about radiosotope dating, or better admit I am right.
jusque-là
Healy where are you? I am truly wanting to hear your critique of my information on radioisotope dating.
Interestingly as mentioned before timber was found in limestone in the UK not far from Oxford University and was dated at 20 odd thousand years. A problem? Yes for evolutionists, who claim the limestone is about 30 million years old. I had some correspondence with the then head of the Carbon 14 dating lab. at Oxford uni.(an evolutionist)and challenged him about this problem. He wrote back saying: either poor field or lab. work. I offered to provide him with a qualified scientist to accompany him so as to do proper field and lab work but he declined-very busy at the moment he said. I left it 6 months and challenged him again. Too busy was the reply. Of course he was 'too busy' as he would not want to be the one to verify that creationist ideas are right.
Could be career suicide! And none dare call it conspiracy.
Sorry started a new job haven't had time for anything of the sort, and now I'm going to the gf's place so it'll have to be "some other time" that you get your fix :)
Healy you have time to blog elsewhere but no time to answer my information!
I think it will be a long wait! However I am patient.
I am confident you cannot refute what I have written and equally confident you will not acknowledge you are wrong, as you are a true believer a fired-up evangelist for your religion.
Post a Comment