PDA

View Full Version : Science for a pre-sin world



Greg Jennings
October 12th, 2015, 02:10 AM
Many of the creationists here at TOL adamantly voice their opinions that science is in clear unity with the scriptures. That would include scientific support for a world before the advent of sin. My question is simple: if creationism is truly what the scientific evidence points to, where and what is the evidence for a pre-sin, pre-death world where every creature got along, ate plants, and never died?


Side question: if nothing ever died, were new baby animals still born? Did the population keep increasing indefinitely? And if so, how about some science for that, too?

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 05:21 AM
:Popcorn:

chrysostom
October 12th, 2015, 05:30 AM
why the question
what if?
if
you haven't got a grip on
what is?
deal with that

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 05:53 AM
why the question
what if?
if
you haven't got a grip on
what is?
deal with that

Says the person focused on an "afterlife"... :Plain:

chrysostom
October 12th, 2015, 06:00 AM
Says the person focused on an "afterlife"... :Plain:

I am focused on a reasonable explanation for why I am here

do you have a reasonable explanation?

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 06:04 AM
I am focused on a reasonable explanation for why I am here

do you have a reasonable explanation?

I do indeed. I am here to love my wife and kids, and I am here to laugh and enjoy my friends. That's "what is" for me. :e4e:

TracerBullet
October 12th, 2015, 06:05 AM
Many of the creationists here at TOL adamantly voice their opinions that science is in clear unity with the scriptures. That would include scientific support for a world before the advent of sin. My question is simple: if creationism is truly what the scientific evidence points to, where and what is the evidence for a pre-sin, pre-death world where every creature got along, ate plants, and never died?


Side question: if nothing ever died, were new baby animals still born? Did the population keep increasing indefinitely? And if so, how about some science for that, too?

I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for a creationist to actually answer your question

chrysostom
October 12th, 2015, 06:07 AM
I do indeed. I am here to love my wife and kids, and I am here to laugh and enjoy my friends. That's "what is" for me. :e4e:

can you think of a reasonable explanation that would include everyone?

6days
October 12th, 2015, 06:21 AM
...where and what is the evidence for a pre-sin, pre-death world where every creature got along, ate plants, and never died?
Genesis 1

Jonahdog
October 12th, 2015, 06:54 AM
Genesis 1

I suspect he was seeking real evidence, not the recorded oral myth of several thousands of years ago.

6days
October 12th, 2015, 07:18 AM
I suspect he was seeking real evidence....
Yes...That's why I said Genesis 1.

RBBI
October 12th, 2015, 07:27 AM
can you think of a reasonable explanation that would include everyone?

I can. We were lowered into this bondage of vanity (a type of death)not willingly. We are here to learn to be willing to lay down our life for Him. No greater love hath any man than he lay down his life for his friends. Peace

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 07:43 AM
I doubt if there would have been enough time for the function of the innocent world to operate to leave much of a physical indication. The question is interlocked with the amount of time between Satan's rebellion with other angels and the creation of man.

The oldest Biblical reference to Satan in Job is that he was roaming back and forth through the earth, which is a verb having to do with predation. (Not trouble with his mobile phone, lol). Ie, I don't see where he has ever let up. We are not told of any other significant events between the creation of the first human couple and their temptation and failure.

That would make the amount of time in question (creation to failure) very short, it seems.

Even if you answer that there was the Bible's own longest allowed amount of time (a day is like a thousand years, Ps 90:4), in which the days of creation were a thousand years, you have perhaps a few thousand in which there indications (the date of Lake Morse in Olympic National Park, the amount of time Niagara has been undercutting). Some day 3 species would have existed on those "days" following (up to 4000 years before the sin of mankind; about 6000 before the deluge) and there are fossils of giant creatures (because of a warm, oxygen-rich climate until the deluge) which are now diminished.

Jamie Gigliotti
October 12th, 2015, 08:37 AM
Many of the creationists here at TOL adamantly voice their opinions that science is in clear unity with the scriptures. That would include scientific support for a world before the advent of sin. My question is simple: if creationism is truly what the scientific evidence points to, where and what is the evidence for a pre-sin, pre-death world where every creature got along, ate plants, and never died?


Side question: if nothing ever died, were new baby animals still born? Did the population keep increasing indefinitely? And if so, how about some science for that, too?

The answer would be based on the power of God. There is nothing an omni-potent God can not do. The world before the fall had no death. The world was changed at the sound of His voice to incorporate death. This became the natural world we live in, before then it was supernatural, And beyond our ability to detect.

Think of the immense power in every atom. How much power it takes to create everything. What we create we can manipulate, why wouldn't God be able to as well?

Jamie Gigliotti
October 12th, 2015, 08:40 AM
I doubt if there would have been enough time for the function of the innocent world to operate to leave much of a physical indication. The question is interlocked with the amount of time between Satan's rebellion with other angels and the creation of man.

The oldest Biblical reference to Satan in Job is that he was roaming back and forth through the earth, which is a verb having to do with predation. (Not trouble with his mobile phone, lol). Ie, I don't see where he has ever let up. We are not told of any other significant events between the creation of the first human couple and their temptation and failure.

That would make the amount of time in question (creation to failure) very short, it seems.

Even if you answer that there was the Bible's own longest allowed amount of time (a day is like a thousand years, Ps 90:4), in which the days of creation were a thousand years, you have perhaps a few thousand in which there indications (the date of Lake Morse in Olympic National Park, the amount of time Niagara has been undercutting). Some day 3 species would have existed on those "days" following (up to 4000 years before the sin of mankind; about 6000 before the deluge) and there are fossils of giant creatures (because of a warm, oxygen-rich climate until the deluge) which are now diminished.

I do think it was very brief. Which makes Greg's question about animals moot as far as I'm concerned.

6days
October 12th, 2015, 08:41 AM
I doubt if there would have been enough time for the function of the innocent world to operate to leave much of a physical indication.
Of course.*


The question is interlocked with the amount of time between Satan's rebellion with other angels and the creation of man.
That amount of time appears to be about 144 hours since 'in six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them'.*

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 08:50 AM
Of course.*


That amount of time appears to be about 144 hours since 'in six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them'.*



Of course on certain things, but we don't know that every expression is about every topic. For ex., you can read in the prophets that a certain city will never exist again. That's true for a very long period, but then you find it back again.

That's why you don't proof-text the age of the earth with Ex. 20, because the topic of the passage is the law and the credentials of the Lawgiver. It is nowhere close to Gen 1 or Ps 104 as far as a complete statement. Other passages are needed to understand 'formless and void'.

The lengths of times of various stages are not answered by lines that are summary statements, which Moses used all through Genesis. cp 4:3. It is a range, not an exact moment.

The question at hand is not the length of formless and void but of the created/formed earth after being made (roughly) what it is today. The length of the stage of formless and void has no bearing on evidence of life because there wasn't any. But that does not mean it was a mere moment.

6days
October 12th, 2015, 09:14 AM
Of course on certain things, but we don't know that every expression is about every topic. For ex., you can read in the prophets that a certain city will never exist again. That's true for a very long period, but then you find it back again.
That's why you don't proof-text the age of the earth with Ex. 20, because the topic of the passage is the law and the credentials of the Lawgiver. It is nowhere close to Gen 1 or Ps 104 as far as a complete statement. Other passages are needed to understand 'formless and void'.
That type of compromise is why young people are rejecting the gospel. They start applying that reasoning to all scripture. An extreme example is one fellow who wrote that people don't need to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, because the story is only meant to convey some truths (Such as being happy in adverse situations)


The lengths of times of various stages are not answered by lines that are summary statements, which Moses used all through Genesis. cp 4:3. It is a range, not an exact moment.
Context provides the meaning. The Hebrew is clear


The question at hand is not the length of formless and void
The earth was formless for the first day...it was all water. The earth was void of life but God finished creating and filling on the 6th day

False Prophet
October 12th, 2015, 09:32 AM
Adam forfeited all that when they ate of the forbidden fruit.

GuySmiley
October 12th, 2015, 10:11 AM
Many of the creationists here at TOL adamantly voice their opinions that science is in clear unity with the scriptures. That would include scientific support for a world before the advent of sin. My question is simple: if creationism is truly what the scientific evidence points to, where and what is the evidence for a pre-sin, pre-death world where every creature got along, ate plants, and never died?
This is like fish turning into people in some ways. We can't ever observe it, so no, there's no scientific evidence for it. But unlike fish turning into people, we do have historical evidence for it.


Side question: if nothing ever died, were new baby animals still born? Did the population keep increasing indefinitely? And if so, how about some science for that, too?
Don't know.

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 10:40 AM
That type of compromise is why young people are rejecting the gospel. They start applying that reasoning to all scripture. An extreme example is one fellow who wrote that people don't need to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, because the story is only meant to convey some truths (Such as being happy in adverse situations)


Context provides the meaning. The Hebrew is clear



What compromise? Your extreme example fails for completely different reasons unrelated to how Moses wrote. You have no explanation for formless and void that makes sense, and you have no explanation for Job 38 that makes sense.


The earth was formless for the first day...it was all water. The earth was void of life but God finished creating and filling on the 6th day



The way Moses wrote this allows for a time period of formless and void, about which we know very little, but in other places it is more than a day, just as 4:3 is more than a day about that context. yes, the context answers it, but not your mentality about that context. You are way too worried about other activity going on, which there was.

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 10:44 AM
That type of compromise is why young people are rejecting the gospel. They start applying that reasoning to all scripture. An extreme example is one fellow who wrote that people don't need to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, because the story is only meant to convey some truths (Such as being happy in adverse situations)


Context provides the meaning. The Hebrew is clear


The earth was formless for the first day...it was all water. The earth was void of life but God finished creating and filling on the 6th day




I don't know what you mean by compromise, but you make it sound like something sexual has been done wrong. I don't just accept your Hebrew skill because you have the ability to post here at TOL.
You never seem to look at the examples of Moses in literary style. I don't know even one remark you have made that shows you have compared them.
You have no reason why formless and void is just a day, when 4:3 is obviously more than just a day, as one example.
You have no answer about Job 38 and God purging evil away before laying the foundations.
You have no answer about tartarus as used by Peter and its corresponding timeframe.

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 10:46 AM
That type of compromise is why young people are rejecting the gospel. They start applying that reasoning to all scripture. An extreme example is one fellow who wrote that people don't need to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, because the story is only meant to convey some truths (Such as being happy in adverse situations)


Context provides the meaning. The Hebrew is clear


The earth was formless for the first day...it was all water. The earth was void of life but God finished creating and filling on the 6th day



Your extreme example fall apart for reasons unrelated to how Moses wrote. I'm very aware of that kind of thinking, which Dr. Schaeffer called neo-orthodox. It's worthless, and it is not what I was doing.

Stripe
October 12th, 2015, 12:11 PM
Many of the creationists here at TOL adamantly voice their opinions that science is in clear unity with the scriptures. That would include scientific support for a world before the advent of sin. My question is simple: if creationism is truly what the scientific evidence points to, where and what is the evidence for a pre-sin, pre-death world where every creature got along, ate plants, and never died?Nothing I can think of provides a direct evidential link to the time before the fall; most everything we have was deposited by the flood.


Side question: if nothing ever died, were new baby animals still born? Did the population keep increasing indefinitely? And if so, how about some science for that, too?
Science for what? :AMR:

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 06:20 PM
Nothing I can think of provides a direct evidential link to the time before the fall; most everything we have was deposited by the flood.


Science for what? :AMR:



There would be geologic evidence: the bedrock under a rapid sedimentary deposit would be one. But it won't have evidence about life forms.

Stripe
October 12th, 2015, 06:34 PM
There would be geologic evidence: the bedrock under a rapid sedimentary deposit would be one. But it won't have evidence about life forms.Ah, of course.

Granite. :up:

Stripe
October 12th, 2015, 06:41 PM
Continental Material under Ocean Floor.
Some granitic, or continental, rock is found under the floors of the western Pacific and southern Indian Oceans.

Basalt, not granite, lies below sediments that continually fall onto the floors of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The basalt, recovered by deep-sea drilling, is not oceanic crust, but once flowed as a liquid up onto the ocean floor. What remains of the 50-mile-thick granite crust after it broke up (and partially melted) must lie a few miles under the lava coating the western Pacific floor. This has not yet been verified, because drilling into the Pacific and Indian Ocean floors seldom exceeds a mile in depth. Current drilling, typically only 0.11 miles deep, penetrates primarily ooze and other sediments that have settled onto the ocean floor in the last several thousand years. Nevertheless, some continental material has been discovered, to the surprise of most geologists.

Geologists refer to a line running down the west-central Pacific as the “andesite line.” It has this name because eruptive rocks west of it are primarily andesite, whereas rocks to the east are primarily basalt. Andesite contains minerals, such as hornblende and biotite, that are present in granite, but not in basalt. These minerals came from melted granite. The andesite line “has been viewed as the dividing line between oceanic and continental crusts.”

PREDICTION 9:
Fragments of a 60-mile-thick granite layer (a hydroplate) will be found a few miles under the Pacific floor and inside the Ring of Fire.
— source (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp17582632)

Nick M
October 12th, 2015, 08:00 PM
My question is simple: if creationism is truly what the scientific evidence points to, where and what is the evidence for a pre-sin, pre-death world where every creature got along, ate plants, and never died?

Where does the Bible say this?

And the pre-flood world was destroyed. He doesn't want us looking back on it although I always wonder about its nature and appearance.

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 08:02 PM
Where does the Bible say this?

And the pre-flood world was destroyed. He doesn't want us looking back on it although I always wonder about its nature and appearance.



He's asking about before Adam sinned.

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 08:03 PM
can you think of a reasonable explanation that would include everyone?

Honestly I cannot. I think there is no ultimate or objective(for lack of a better term) "reason" we are here. I choose to make my family my reason. If that's what you're asking. If not, explain differently, and I'll respond accordingly.

Sorry if I didn't catch your drift... my brain is running more slowly than usual. Work has been rough, as of late.

Nick M
October 12th, 2015, 08:04 PM
Honestly I cannot. I think there is no ultimate or objective(for lack of a better term) "reason" we are here.

Do you believe in logic or random accidents?

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 08:09 PM
Do you believe in logic or random accidents?

:e4e: Nick!

It depends on the situation. I think there are logical occurrences, and random accidents. IF that's what you're asking.

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 08:23 PM
The chief end of man is glorify God. It's great to glorify God through care for your family, but merely caring for merely your family can slow to a halt. It is a good thing because it gets us 'outside' ourselves, but if getting 'outside' is good, then so is glorifying God through worship, knowing his works, and caring for those around us.

6days
October 12th, 2015, 08:25 PM
I think there are logical occurrences, and random accidents.
Its logical that something has existed throughout eternity caused our universe to begin. (Random accidents always have a cause).
The evidence of design in the universe points to an omnipotent omniscient Creator.
(Or, we could use Dawkins phrase "appearance of design", to say that a logical conclusion would be that there is a Designer)

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 08:30 PM
Its logical that something has existed throughout eternity caused our universe to begin. (Random accidents always have a cause).
The evidence of design in the universe points to an omnipotent omniscient Creator.
(Or, we could use Dawkins phrase "appearance of design", to say that a logical conclusion would be that there is a Designer)


I really hope you're not going straight to special pleading... if our universe requires a designer, then that designer must have a designer OR, you step outside of logic by saying he's always existed.

User Name
October 12th, 2015, 08:42 PM
Nothing I can think of provides a direct evidential link to the time before the fall; most everything we have was deposited by the flood.

When do you estimate the Step Pyramid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser) in Egypt was constructed?

https://youtu.be/XPI-6okYdX0?t=4m29s

6days
October 12th, 2015, 08:45 PM
I really hope you're not going straight to special pleading... if our universe requires a designer, then that designer must have a designer OR, you step outside of logic by saying he's always existed.It isn't special pleading... It is simple logic, which atheists deny.
Anything which has ever begun has a cause.
The ONLY logical explanation is that there is something uncaused which has existed throughout all eternity, caused everything.

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 08:49 PM
It isn't special pleading... It is simple logic, which atheists deny.
Anything which has ever begun has a cause.
The ONLY logical explanation is that there is something uncaused which has existed throughout all eternity, caused everything.

LOL. Roger that. The only logical explanation for everything that must follow logic is an illogical being. "Anything which has ever begun has a cause"<-- except the thing that has no cause. I'll keep that in mind. :Plain:

Interplanner
October 12th, 2015, 08:50 PM
I really hope you're not going straight to special pleading... if our universe requires a designer, then that designer must have a designer OR, you step outside of logic by saying he's always existed.



You don't step outside of it, Deets. No logical step ever defined what a person was like. If that person is "from everlasting to everlasting" he doesn't need a designer. "The Christian answer to the metaphysical problem Sartre arrived at was that there is not a problem; God was already there." --Dr. Schaeffer, HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT.

Schaeffer or Christianity did not put it there as an extension of someone's logical breakthrough. That's not what the source reveals about God. He already was there, and among other things he has done, he made the earth to enjoy fellowship with mankind. He called them his children. He gives many things to enjoy, to "gladden the hearts of man" Acts 17, but He doesn't want things to be enjoyed while He is neglected. Paul quoted a Greek poet who said it this way: "In Him (God), we live and move and have our being." Perhaps the poet had realized the place is a pretty bleak prospect if that's not true.

6days
October 12th, 2015, 08:59 PM
LOL. Roger that. The only logical explanation for everything that must follow logic is an illogical being. "Anything which has ever begun has a cause"<-- except the thing that has no cause. I'll keep that in mind. :Plain:
You are not being logical.
You are unable to think of anything that has begun, that doesn't have a cause. Yet, you are seemingly willing to believe that nothing caused everything.

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 09:02 PM
You don't step outside of it, Deets. No logical step ever defined what a person was like. If that person is "from everlasting to everlasting" he doesn't need a designer. "The Christian answer to the metaphysical problem Sartre arrived at was that there is not a problem; God was already there." --Dr. Schaeffer, HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT.

Schaeffer or Christianity did not put it there as an extension of someone's logical breakthrough. That's not what the source reveals about God. He already was there, and among other things he has done, he made the earth to enjoy fellowship with mankind. He called them his children. He gives many things to enjoy, to "gladden the hearts of man" Acts 17, but He doesn't want things to be enjoyed while He is neglected. Paul quoted a Greek poet who said it this way: "In Him (God), we live and move and have our being." Perhaps the poet had realized the place is a pretty bleak prospect if that's not true.

Just saying that "He's eternal" doesn't make it sound less ludicrous. When a person says in the same breath that 'everything ever has to have a designer, except the designer', it makes zero sense. 1 Cor 1:27 and 1 Cor 1:18 I guess. :idunno:


*For the record, I'm honestly trying not to be rude. I really just don't get it. I hope I don't come across as a patronizing a hole. That is not my intention.

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 09:04 PM
You are not being logical.
You are unable to think of anything that has begun, that doesn't have a cause. Yet, you are seemingly willing to believe that nothing caused everything.

I am 100% okay not knowing everything. I have not yet made the claim that "nothing caused everything", nor will I. I don't understand quantum physics, nor will I ever. I'd like to point you to the quote in my sig...

6days
October 12th, 2015, 09:05 PM
Just saying that "He's eternal" doesn't make it sound less ludicrous. When a person says in the same breath that 'everything ever has to have a designer, except the designer', it makes zero sense. 1 Cor 1:27 and 1 Cor 1:18 I guess. :idunno:


*For the record, I'm honestly trying not to be rude. I really just don't get it. I hope I don't come across as a patronizing a hole. That is not my intention.
And I think you are not being logical, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise.
I think you have 2 choices of believing nothing caused everything... or something uncaused, which has always existed caused everything.

6days
October 12th, 2015, 09:08 PM
I am 100% okay not knowing everything. I have not yet made the claim that "nothing caused everything", nor will I. I don't understand quantum physics, nor will I ever. I'd like to point you to the quote in my sig...
Even if you use a quantum fluctuation to try and explain everything, you still have to believe that an immense energy force existed eternally.

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 09:11 PM
And I think you are not being logical, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise.
I think you have 2 choices of believing nothing caused everything... or something uncaused, which has always existed caused everything.


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't made any claims in this thread that require convincing.

There is a 3rd option, by the way- "I/We don't know". The "yet" may or may not apply. That option seems to be the most honest, IMO.


Even if you use a quantum fluctuation to try and explain everything, you still have to believe that an immense energy force existed eternally.
Maybe that's true. I'm not worried about it. Honestly.

6days
October 12th, 2015, 09:19 PM
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I haven't made any claims in this thread that require convincing.

There is a 3rd option, by the way- "I/We don't know". The "yet" may or may not apply. That option seems to be the most honest, IMO.
Of course as an atheist you don't know..... but there still is only the two choices:
1. Nothing caused everything.
2. Something which existed eternally caused everything.
Logic from everything we know tells us that choice #2 is correct.

Mr Deets..... Are you willing to consider that there is an omnipotent, omniscient Being, who caused everything?

Nick M
October 12th, 2015, 09:32 PM
He's asking about before Adam sinned.

Yeah, and? Where does the Bible say those things?

Nick M
October 12th, 2015, 09:34 PM
:e4e: Nick!

It depends on the situation. I think there are logical occurrences, and random accidents. IF that's what you're asking.

Is a Boeing 777 the result of logic or random accidents?

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 09:52 PM
Of course as an atheist you don't know..... but there still is only the two choices:
1. Nothing caused everything.
2. Something which existed eternally caused everything.
Logic from everything we know tells us that choice #2 is correct. #1 isn't quite what physicists think happened, but I'll concede the two points on the idea that its close enough.


Mr Deets..... Are you willing to consider that there is an omnipotent, omniscient Being, who caused everything?

Given sufficient evidence, I'd be willing to believe in a creator deity/being again, but I highly doubt I'd accept the literal, YEC position ever again.

MrDeets
October 12th, 2015, 09:55 PM
Is a Boeing 777 the result of logic or random accidents?

Not a fair analogy. But I'll answer anyway. It's a result of (gasp) logic/design/intent, etc...

Spare me the "tornado through a junkyard" analogy.

Interplanner
October 13th, 2015, 06:46 AM
#1 isn't quite what physicists think happened, but I'll concede the two points on the idea that its close enough.



Given sufficient evidence, I'd be willing to believe in a creator deity/being again, but I highly doubt I'd accept the literal, YEC position ever again.



Maybe instead of waiting on sufficient evidence, you might decide how God is going to be defined. I'm sure you know Dawkins' outburst while trying to respond to the level design seen in DNA.

MrDeets
October 13th, 2015, 07:20 AM
Maybe instead of waiting on sufficient evidence, you might decide how God is going to be defined. I'm sure you know Dawkins' outburst while trying to respond to the level design seen in DNA.

LOL, I'm familiar. :chuckle:

When thinking about how to define God, all I can do is revert to my own desires/needs/etc which I think would be unfair or too "small minded". In working the steps of AA, I had to "define" what God or my higher power would be or how it would behave. I was surprised at how human it was. That being said, I think IF God were to show up here on Earth, Believers of all sorts would be just as surprised as atheists by Its personality/composition/origin. I'm well aware we disagree on that. :D

Stripe
October 13th, 2015, 09:14 AM
When do you estimate the Step Pyramid in Egypt was constructed?

Is it your plan to derail every thread with nonsense?

Jose Fly
October 13th, 2015, 09:34 AM
Even if you use a quantum fluctuation to try and explain everything, you still have to believe that an immense energy force existed eternally.

Only in the sense that time itself didn't exist until that fluctuation occurred. IOW, there was no "before the big bang".

Stripe
October 13th, 2015, 09:44 AM
Spare me the "tornado through a junkyard" analogy.

Why?

It is more realistic to imagine a tornado in a junkyard churning out a Boeing 777 than it is to believe the simplest living organism arose by pure chance.

MrDeets
October 13th, 2015, 10:14 AM
First off, HOWDY. :e4e:


Why? Because it's a played out comparison. I could try to explain to you how it's a misrepresentation of what current science thinks about evolution, to which you'd reply 'nuh-uh, it's a perfect representation', and so on(even though I've never seen you say nuh-uh, it'd be something like that. :D).


It is more realistic to imagine a tornado in a junkyard churning out a Boeing 777 than it is to believe the simplest living organism arose by pure chance.

For you and many others, it may seem that way. For me, it makes more sense that guys in lab coats who have dedicated their life to very specific area of study would have a better idea of the story of our planet and life's origins than(I do not mean this sarcastically) guys who spent a lifetime in the desert herding goats.

Stripe
October 13th, 2015, 11:17 AM
First off, HOWDY. :e4e:


Because it's a played out comparison. I could try to explain to you how it's a misrepresentation of what current science thinks about evolution, to which you'd reply 'nuh-uh, it's a perfect representation', and so on(even though I've never seen you say nuh-uh, it'd be something like that. :D).I would point out that the standard evolutionary position is to claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. However, I'm not interested in a proxy discussion. The challenge is a valid one.


For you and many others, it may seem that way. For me, it makes more sense that guys in lab coats who have dedicated their life to very specific area of study would have a better idea of the story of our planet and life's origins than(I do not mean this sarcastically) guys who spent a lifetime in the desert herding goats.What if the guys in the lab coats declare the glory of God?

MrDeets
October 13th, 2015, 11:36 AM
I would point out that the standard evolutionary position is to claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
I'm aware they make that claim. I think IF abiogenisis could be proven beyond doubt, they'd be happy to claim it. As of yet, to the majority of the scientific community it is only 'the most likely option', which, I assume is why the draw the line of separation.


However, I'm not interested in a proxy discussion. The challenge is a valid one. lol. I know you think it is. :p


What if the guys in the lab coats declare the glory of God? If even a good portion of them began to do such, due to new evidence, I would absolutely rethink my position. Without doubt. However, IF indeed they do "find God", I really doubt that it would be Yahweh as presented in the Bible.

MrDeets
October 13th, 2015, 11:38 AM
***For the record, I typed that out several times including separate mentions for the earth, abiogenesis, and evolution, but I was having a hard time typing it in a way that made sense. So I shortened it to just evolution. :)

Jose Fly
October 13th, 2015, 11:48 AM
I'm aware they make that claim. I think IF abiogenisis could be proven beyond doubt, they'd be happy to claim it. As of yet, to the majority of the scientific community it is only 'the most likely option', which, I assume is why the draw the line of separation.

They are separate because no matter how the first self-replicators came to be on earth (chemistry, aliens, gods, etc.), evolutionary theory still explains the subsequent history of life.

I know creationists like to pretend that the origin of the first life remaining an unsolved mystery is a blow against evolution, but that's mainly because of 1) their ignorance of science, and 2) their desperation to throw rocks at evolution.

MrDeets
October 13th, 2015, 12:27 PM
They are separate because no matter how the first self-replicators came to be on earth (chemistry, aliens, gods, etc.), evolutionary theory still explains the subsequent history of life. AHA! Thanks. That's a better answer than I gave... :thumb:


I know creationists like to pretend that the origin of the first life remaining an unsolved mystery is a blow against evolution, but that's mainly because of 1) their ignorance of science, and 2) their desperation to throw rocks at evolution.
I agree with this. I remember being this way. :bang:

ok doser
October 13th, 2015, 12:48 PM
I'm aware they make that claim. I think IF abiogenisis could be proven beyond doubt, they'd be happy to claim it. As of yet, to the majority of the scientific community it is only 'the most likely option'....



it would be more persuasive if they could reproduce it (abogenesis) in the lab

:think: same thing with evolution, for that matter

User Name
October 13th, 2015, 12:50 PM
Nothing I can think of provides a direct evidential link to the time before the fall; most everything we have was deposited by the flood.


When do you estimate the Step Pyramid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser) in Egypt was constructed?

https://youtu.be/XPI-6okYdX0?t=4m29s


Is it your plan to derail every thread with nonsense?

How am I derailing this thread? All I did was ask a straightforward question based on something you said. Will you answer it?

Stripe
October 13th, 2015, 12:54 PM
How am I derailing this thread?

How are you on topic?

Either concede that my point is valid or butt out. :up:

User Name
October 13th, 2015, 12:58 PM
How are you on topic?

Either concede that my point is valid or butt out. :up:

:chuckle:

Stripe
October 13th, 2015, 01:26 PM
:chuckle:

I see a rational discussion is beyond you. No wonder you stick with posting links.

MrDeets
October 13th, 2015, 01:38 PM
it would be more persuasive if they could reproduce it (abogenesis) in the lab They're working on it, and learning more all the time. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. :idunno: This article is far from absolute proof, but it is intriguing...http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum


:think: same thing with evolution, for that matter

That statement shows exactly how well you understand evolution. "Evolution"(artificial selection is a better term when humans guide or influence it) is "duplicated" in agriculture, the breeding of animals, vaccines, etc. Duplicating natural selection in a lab would prove zilch, because it's a forced duplication under scientific circumstances. Natural selection or "evolution" is being observed all over the world, though I'm sure you'd call it "micro", which would even farther demonstrate your lack of understanding.

Right Divider
October 13th, 2015, 02:18 PM
Only in the sense that time itself didn't exist until that fluctuation occurred. IOW, there was no "before the big bang".
Something out of nothing. Interesting "theory".

6days
October 13th, 2015, 04:01 PM
They're working on it, and learning more all the time. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. :idunno: This article is far from absolute proof, but it is intriguing..
So far the attempts to produce life in a lab has shown that extreme intelligence is required.

6days
October 13th, 2015, 06:47 PM
Natural selection or "evolution" is being observed all over the world, though I'm sure you'd call it "micro", which would even farther demonstrate your lack of understanding.
Observed.... Hmmm... We observe rapid adaptation. (Creationist model). We observe this adaptation is possible because of pre-existing information in the genome and pre-existing mechanisms. We observe that 'natural selection' is unable to create anything, and is usually quite impotent at deleting anything. We observe that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious and even the rare beneficial outcome, usually is a result of destroyed pre-existing information. (Such as loss of specificity of an enzyme). We observe that kinds such as cats, and dogs, and horses, and butterflies and apple trees reproduce after their kind.
What we observe "all over the world" is evidence supporting the Biblical Creator. These are exciting times to be a Christian.

Nick M
October 13th, 2015, 06:51 PM
Not a fair analogy.

There is no analogy. You cannot believe in logic and say there is no God. I wonder to which camp you subscribe. That everything must be an accident, or everything was designed and created.

Right Divider
October 13th, 2015, 07:39 PM
There is no analogy. You cannot believe in logic and say there is no God. I wonder to which camp you subscribe. That everything must be an accident, or everything was designed and created.
How dare you claim that there is an immaterial world out there that atheists and agnostics cannot test under a microscope!

Yorzhik
October 13th, 2015, 08:40 PM
AHA! Thanks. That's a better answer than I gave... :thumb:
MrDeets. That's only true if you believe in magic and ignore reality. As science progresses, common descent becomes more ridiculous than it already is.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 12:10 AM
Welp.....I backed off completely gave this a couple days in hope that someone would offer what I was asking for: scientific evidence of a pre-sin world or of a time when all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died. So far the closest thing I've gotten (and it's not close to being scientific) is "Genesis 1." If that counts as science then so does The Odyssey, meaning that scylla and cyclops are real. That's doubtful

So can the creationists here admit that there is NO scientific evidence for their origin story, and that it's simply a belief with no substantiating evidence?
And finally quit trumpeting that "science supports Genesis"?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 12:12 AM
MrDeets. That's only true if you believe in magic and ignore reality. As science progresses, common descent becomes more ridiculous than it already is.

If that's true then why has it been consistently being accepted at increasing numbers in the scientific community over the past 100 years? Now it's to the point that it's almost unanimous among scientists that evolution is very real and observable (north of 99%).

So if science is making it appear more and more ridiculous every day, why don't the scientists think that?

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 12:20 AM
Welp.....I backed off completely gave this a couple days in hope that someone would offer what I was asking for: scientific evidence of a pre-sin world or of a time when all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died. So far the closest thing I've gotten (and it's not close to being scientific) is "Genesis 1." If that counts as science then so does The Odyssey, meaning that scylla and cyclops are real. That's doubtful

So can the creationists here admit that there is NO scientific evidence for their origin story, and that it's simply a belief with no substantiating evidence?
Evolutionists hate reading.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 12:23 AM
Evolutionists hate reading.

Mmhmm.....because scientists, people who write and meticulously proofread papers and do tedious studies in order to gather research for those papers in order for other scientists to read and review those papers, hate reading.


It all makes sense now

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 12:31 AM
Mmhmm...

Because the evidence — along with a prediction — was given to you, but you, an evolutionist, have pretended not to have seen anything.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 12:39 AM
Because the evidence — along with a prediction — was given to you, but you, an evolutionist, have pretended not to have seen anything.

Care to direct me to the page on this thread where the evidence is listed? Or if you want post the evidence again right here and prove me, the evolutionist who has pretended to not see it or lied about not seeing it, wrong.

You can validate your claim that evolutionists are dishonest/illiterate right now Stripe. This is the chance of your lifetime. Don't pass it up

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 12:58 AM
You passed it up. Why I wonder?

chair
October 14th, 2015, 03:14 AM
You passed it up. Why I wonder?

He is playing his usual games.

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 04:58 AM
Care to direct me to the page on this thread where the evidence is listed? Or if you want post the evidence again right here and prove me, the evolutionist who has pretended to not see it or lied about not seeing it, wrong.

You can validate your claim that evolutionists are dishonest/illiterate right now Stripe. This is the chance of your lifetime. Don't pass it up I'm not here to play your silly games.

Try reading your thread. :up:

MrDeets
October 14th, 2015, 05:24 AM
If that's true then why has it been consistently being accepted at increasing numbers in the scientific community over the past 100 years? Now it's to the point that it's almost unanimous among scientists that evolution is very real and observable (north of 99%)

I now see why the evolution threads always run in circles. :box: Methinks this is the wrong place to try and stick to peer reviewed, commonly accepted science and get anywhere with that. Faith is valued more highly than any single shred of accepted fact. Oh well.

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 06:37 AM
They're working on it, and learning more all the time. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. :idunno: This article is far from absolute proof, but it is intriguing...http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum



That statement shows exactly how well you understand evolution. "Evolution"(artificial selection is a better term when humans guide or influence it) is "duplicated" in agriculture, the breeding of animals, vaccines, etc. Duplicating natural selection in a lab would prove zilch, because it's a forced duplication under scientific circumstances. Natural selection or "evolution" is being observed all over the world, though I'm sure you'd call it "micro", which would even farther demonstrate your lack of understanding.

oh deets :nono:

my "lack of understanding"?

:darwinsm:

good one! :thumb:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 08:23 AM
Evolutionists hate reading.


Mmhmm.....because scientists, people who write and meticulously proofread papers and do tedious studies in order to gather research for those papers in order for other scientists to read and review those papers, hate reading.


It all makes sense now


Because the evidence — along with a prediction — was given to you, but you, an evolutionist, have pretended not to have seen anything.


Care to direct me to the page on this thread where the evidence is listed? Or if you want post the evidence again right here and prove me, the evolutionist who has pretended to not see it or lied about not seeing it, wrong.

You can validate your claim that evolutionists are dishonest/illiterate right now Stripe. This is the chance of your lifetime. Don't pass it up


I'm not here to play your silly games.

Try reading your thread. :up:

:rotfl:

Great work, Stripe. Really good stuff

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 08:41 AM
Great work, Stripe. Really good stuff

What? My post that you demanded, but then ignored?

Yeah, I know. How do you? :think:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 08:43 AM
What? My post that you demanded, but then ignored?

Yeah, I know. How do you? :think:

:rotfl: Anyone can see in my post above that I asked for evidence that you claimed was here, then refused to provide. Does this game you play really fool anyone?

If it does then props to you. You've found a way to convince people here of your credibility with minimum effort. That takes knowing your audience. You should go into sales

6days
October 14th, 2015, 09:04 AM
:rotfl: Anyone can see in my post above that I asked for evidence that you claimed was here, then refused to provide. Does this game you play really fool anyone?

If it does then props to you. You've found a way to convince people here of your credibility with minimum effort. That takes knowing your audience. You should go into sales
Greg...I didn't read everything so perhaps I missed something in your chat with Stripe. But, I did see where he said 'evolutionists hate reading'. I suspect he says that because you keep demanding an answer to the OP, which was answered several times early in the thread. IOW, it appears you aren't really interested in an answer...Either that or, "evolutionists hate to read".

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 09:19 AM
Greg...I didn't read everything so perhaps I missed something in your chat with Stripe. But, I did see where he said 'evolutionists hate reading'. I suspect he says that because you keep demanding an answer to the OP, which was answered several times early in the thread. IOW, it appears you aren't really interested in an answer...Either that or, "evolutionists hate to read".

6days I've reviewed the entire thread four times for the scientific evidence asked for in the OP. There hasn't been any scientific evidence listed. As I previously mentioned, the closest thing I got was you saying "Genesis 1" which you and I both know isn't scientific.

If I'm mistaken, please direct me to the post or post number of any containing scientific evidence(s) that support a pre-sin world. Thanks

6days
October 14th, 2015, 09:24 AM
6days I've reviewed the entire thread four times for the scientific evidence asked for in the OP. There hasn't been any scientific evidence listed. As I previously mentioned, the closest thing I got was you saying "Genesis 1" which you and I both know isn't scientific.

If I'm mistaken, please direct me to the post or post number of any containing scientific evidence(s) that support a pre-sin world. Thanks

I think a few people said, or asked, what evidence you expect from a time span of a few days, from 6000 years ago.

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 09:26 AM
I've reviewed the entire thread four times.

Great. Then you should have found my posts that contain evidence and a prediction then. :thumb:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 09:31 AM
I think a few people said, or asked, what evidence you expect from a time span of a few days, from 6000 years ago.

Anything measurable or tangible. Anything that can verify the creation story instead of just blindly assuming it to be truth. ANYTHING

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 09:33 AM
Anything measurable or tangible. Anything that can verify the creation story instead of just blindly assuming it to be truth. ANYTHING

the existing universe :idunno:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 09:34 AM
the existing universe :idunno:

Does anyone here know what tangible or scientific means?

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 09:35 AM
Does anyone here know what tangible or scientific means?

you don't think the universe is tangible? :freak:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 09:36 AM
Great. Then you should have found my posts that contain evidence and a prediction then. :thumb:

You mean this?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp17582632

The errors on that specific page are so mind-boggling it's not even funny. It is not evidence for creation. It is, however, excellent evidence for why creationist sites are either uneducated or dishonest.

Think about this Stripe: if the science is so supportive of Genesis, then why must you go to creationist websites in order to find any claimed evidence?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 09:37 AM
you don't think the universe is tangible? :freak:

Of course it is. But the fact that it is here isn't evidence for how it got here. And what is being asked for is evidence of the biblical creation being the method by which the universe was created. I guess that's not obvious to you?

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 09:41 AM
6days I've reviewed the entire thread four times for the scientific evidence asked for in the OP. There hasn't been any scientific evidence listed. As I previously mentioned, the closest thing I got was you saying "Genesis 1" which you and I both know isn't scientific.

If I'm mistaken, please direct me to the post or post number of any containing scientific evidence(s) that support a pre-sin world. Thanks

Get used to this tactic from the creationists here at ToL. They like to dodge and avoid questions, wait until threads are 6+ pages long, and then claim to have already answered the questions (but never seem to be able to say where). And as you've also seen, in the meantime they like to make a lot of empty assertions about how terrible evolutionary biology is, how it's already been falsified, and how creationism is the model that's actually supported by the data.

But all that does is demonstrate just how impossible it is to advocate creationism honestly.

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 09:42 AM
Of course it is.

so you're willing to accept that the universe is tangible

good, that's a start :thumb:


But the fact that it is here isn't evidence for how it got here. And what is being asked for is evidence of the biblical creation being the method by which the universe was created. I guess that's not obvious to you?

i'm taking this in baby steps, so bear with me

you admit that the universe exists and that it is tangible, right?

do you accept the scientific concept of entropy?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 09:44 AM
so you're willing to accept that the universe is tangible

good, that's a start :thumb:



i'm taking this in baby steps, so bear with me

you admit that the universe exists and that it is tangible, right?

do you accept the scientific concept of entropy?

I accept is because that what's we observe in the universe and at the quantum level, yes

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 09:50 AM
good

if you understand the concept of entropy, then you should understand that this means that the universe, as a closed system, cannot have existed forever and will not exist forever

do you agree?

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 09:52 AM
if you understand the concept of entropy, then you should understand that this means that the universe, as a closed system, cannot have existed forever

Yes it can. Time itself did not exist until the moment of the big bang. Thus, there was no "before the big bang", which means as far as the past, there was no time in which the universe did not exist.

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 09:53 AM
Yes it can. Time itself did not exist until the moment of the big bang. Thus, there was no "before the big bang", which means as far as the past, there was no time in which the universe did not exist.

sorry josie, i'm having a discussion with greg

6days
October 14th, 2015, 09:54 AM
Anything measurable or tangible. Anything that can verify the creation story instead of just blindly assuming it to be truth. ANYTHING

Stripe was correct... " evolutionists hate to...."
(Not all evolutionists of course... some actually can dialogue)

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 09:55 AM
sorry josie, i'm having a discussion with greg

http://no2minutewarning.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/MontyPythonRunAway-585x405.jpg

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 09:58 AM
good

if you understand the concept of entropy, then you should understand that this means that the universe, as a closed system, cannot have existed forever and will not exist forever

do you agree?

I think most physicists agree with you that the universe had a beginning. But the explanations for what was "before" the universe (because you can't really have a "before" prior to the existence of time) are numerous and completely ideological as there is no way to measure what existed (if anything) "before" the laws of physics that we are familiar with existed.

On the end of the universe: physicists are split on whether cosmic expansion will continue to the point where everything gets so far from everything else that it fizzles out without truly "dying," the universe will eventually collapse in on itself and result in another Big Bang, or whether the entropy we see will continue until there is a perfect equilibrium of matter throughout the entire universe (basically the result of that is that everywhere in the universe would look, feel, and act exactly like everywhere else in the universe. Logically, quantum physics leads to this conclusion).

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:01 AM
Stripe was correct... " evolutionists hate to...."
(Not all evolutionists of course... some actually can dialogue)

So basically, you can't find any real evidence? You know, the kind that you constantly refuse to acknowledge exists in favor of a 4 billion year old Earth in fields as varied as astronomy, geology, paleontology, archaeology, nuclear physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, quantum physics.......?

They have strong evidence but are all wrong, and you have no evidence but are undoubtedly right, correct?

6days
October 14th, 2015, 10:02 AM
So basically, you can't find any real evidence? You know, the kind that you constantly refuse to acknowledge exists in favor of a 4 billion year old Earth in fields as varied as astronomy, geology, paleontology, archaeology, nuclear physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, quantum physics.......?
Stripe was correct

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:03 AM
Stripe was correct

:rotfl:

Okie dokie

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:04 AM
I think most physicists agree with you that the universe had a beginning.

logically, it must have, given entropy

if you agree, we'll go on


if the universe had a beginning, do you agree that, logically, it must have come from something?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:06 AM
logically, it must have, given entropy

if you agree, we'll go on


if the universe had a beginning, do you agree that, logically, it must have come from something?

I think so, but no it doesn't have to have come from anything. We don't have enough information to say that

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 10:06 AM
Welp.....I backed off completely gave this a couple days in hope that someone would offer what I was asking for: scientific evidence of a pre-sin world or of a time when all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died. So far the closest thing I've gotten (and it's not close to being scientific) is "Genesis 1." If that counts as science then so does The Odyssey, meaning that scylla and cyclops are real. That's doubtful

So can the creationists here admit that there is NO scientific evidence for their origin story, and that it's simply a belief with no substantiating evidence?
And finally quit trumpeting that "science supports Genesis"?
Evidence of a pre-sin world where all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died is not the same as the entire origin story. Nice try. Atheists hate Logic (literally).

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 10:06 AM
Stripe was correct... " evolutionists hate to...."
(Not all evolutionists of course... some actually can dialogue)

I see Stripe's dialogues are akin to a brick wall - :bang:

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 10:06 AM
You mean this?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches5.html#wp17582632:BRAVO:

Honestly, it's like pulling teeth with you lot. :rolleyes:


The errors on that specific page are so mind-boggling it's not even funny.But you won't say what they are. :rolleyes:


It is not evidence for creation.Sure, it is.


It is, however, excellent evidence for why creationist sites are either uneducated or dishonest.
Because it is written by an MIT-educated Phd? :AMR:


Think about this Stripe: if the science is so supportive of Genesis, then why must you go to creationist websites in order to find any claimed evidence?Because a degree in Earth Science revealed next to nothing about the fundamentals. :thumb:

Do you have any science training?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:07 AM
Evidence of a pre-sin world where all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died is not the same as the entire origin story. Nice try. Atheists hate Logic (literally).

Do you have evidence for either?

I'll wait

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:08 AM
I think so, but no it doesn't have to have come from anything.


scientifically, it does

logically, it does

you can't make something from nothing

not in the lab, not in the real world

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:12 AM
:BRAVO:

Honestly, it's like pulling teeth with you lot. :rolleyes:

I know that having to substantiate your claims is unsettling, but also it's necessary for you to claim "scientific evidence"


But you won't say what they are. :rolleyes: If I did, would you honestly consider what I said? No, of course not. So why would I waste my time? I've tried to do that with you before. It's an exercise in futility.


Because it is written by an MIT-educated Phd? :AMR:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)
Read if you will


Because a degree in Earth Science revealed next to nothing about the fundamentals. :thumb:
What?


Do you have any science training?
I had to spend a lot of time in class, in labs, and in the field to get my degree. So yes

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:15 AM
I had to spend a lot of time in class, in labs, and in the field to get my degree. So yes

two of my degrees are in fields of chemistry and i'm currently on a PhD track in the medical field

what's your degree?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:16 AM
scientifically, it does
Absolutely not


logically, it does If it's logical that everything has a beginning, then God must also have a beginning. Saying "he is eternal" violates your own logic. If God can be eternal, why not the universe?


you can't make something from nothing Not within the laws of physics that came into being when the universe was created. Before that, your claim has no validity


not in the lab, not in the real world See my last response above

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 10:18 AM
Do you have evidence for either?

I'll wait
:chuckle: Wow, you really do hate reading.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:18 AM
two of my degrees are in fields of chemistry and i'm currently on a PhD track in the medical field

what's your degree?

Oh how I doubt you based on conversations in the politics forum. In fact I'm certain you're lying.

But I'll happily tell you that I received a BS in organic chemistry.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:19 AM
:chuckle: Wow, you really do hate reading.

I'm noticing a trend: when asked to provide evidence, creationists refuse to provide it

Why I wonder?

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 10:20 AM
Oh how I doubt you based on conversations in the politics forum. In fact I'm certain you're lying.

But I'll happily tell you that I received a BS in organic chemistry.
I doubt it, I'm sure you're lying.

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 10:20 AM
I know that having to substantiate your claims is unsettling, but also it's necessary for you to claim "scientific evidence"Fortunately, I answered OP with evidence and a prediction — the currency of science. :thumb:

We're waiting on you to concede that indeed there is evidence that a previous, unbroken world did exist.

We'll wait.


If I did, would you honestly consider what I said?Yes, of course. So why not try? You've never tried before. You won't know until you try.


Read if you willWhat's to read? You said creationists are uneducated. I have a degree in Earth Science. Dr Brown is MIT accredited. It seems another of your assertions has fallen flat on its face. :idunno:


What?Should I type more slowly so you can keep up?


I had to spend a lot of time in class, in labs, and in the field to get my degree. So yesAh. A sociology student. :chuckle:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:22 AM
I doubt it, I'm sure you're lying.

Cool. You also doubt evolution, and that's true. I like my standing

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 10:22 AM
I'm noticing a trend: when asked to provide evidence, creationists refuse to provide it

Why I wonder?
I answered your OP. But the trend I notice is that atheists won't read, and move the goal posts to make unsupported conclusions. Why I wonder?

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:27 AM
I'm noticing a trend: when asked to provide evidence, creationists refuse to provide it

Why I wonder?

Because as 6days has admitted, creationism is a belief, not science.

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 10:29 AM
Cool. You also doubt evolution, and that's true. I like my standing
Do you have evidence of evolution? But I insist on evidence that I wont find full of errors that are so mind boggling as to be not even funny. Because it'd be a shame for me to simply dismiss anything you show me and then declare victory. That would be incredibly intellectually dishonest wouldn't it?

So now for that evidence, I'm waiting.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:30 AM
Fortunately, I answered OP with evidence and a prediction — the currency of science. :thumb:
You supplied an easily refuted source, yes. Where do you get this idea that predictions are "the currency of science?" Who said that? Please tell us all


We're waiting on you to concede that indeed there is evidence that a previous, unbroken world did exist.

We'll wait.
When it's provided, I'll be happy to


Yes, of course. So why not try? You've never tried before. You won't know until you try. You didn't read the wiki link. That's pretty telling


What's to read? You said creationists are uneducated. I have a degree in Earth Science. Dr Brown is MIT accredited. It seems another of your assertions has fallen flat on its face. :idunno: You misunderstood me I see. Though it is often true that creationists are collegiately uneducated, I was referring to the fact that they are mostly not properly educated on the science that they are professing to be knowledgable of. Walt Brown has a PhD yes, and that's rare on creationist sites.

Good for you for having a degree in Earth Science. What are you doing with it?


Should I type more slowly so you can keep up? If you want


Ah. A sociology student. :chuckle: Not exactly, but I guess sociology and organic chemistry are pretty much the same, aren't they?

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 10:32 AM
You supplied an easily refuted source,
:rotfl: Yes, it was quite easy for you to simply not consider it.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:32 AM
Do you have evidence of evolution? But I insist on evidence that I wont find full of errors that are so mind boggling as to be not even funny. Because it'd be a shame for me to simply dismiss anything you show me and then declare victory. That would be incredibly intellectually dishonest wouldn't it?

So now for that evidence, I'm waiting.

Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Antibiotic resistance:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/antibiotic_resistance.htm
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360

Read then get back to me. Mmkay?

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:34 AM
Do you have evidence of evolution? But I insist on evidence that I wont find full of errors that are so mind boggling as to be not even funny. Because it'd be a shame for me to simply dismiss anything you show me and then declare victory. That would be incredibly intellectually dishonest wouldn't it?

So now for that evidence, I'm waiting.

And this is how these threads almost always go....you ask creationists for evidence for creationism, they dodge and evade, and then try and turn it into a thread about evolution.

But I guess that's what we can expect given that creationism is a belief, and is impossible to advocate honestly.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:34 AM
:rotfl: Yes, it was quite easy for you to simply not consider it.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geophys/platevid.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/evidence.html

Refuted. Read and get back to me. Mmkay?

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 10:36 AM
You misunderstood me I see.That's typically what happens when you read what an evolutionist's words plainly say. :)


It is often true that creationists are collegiately uneducated, I was referring to the fact that they are mostly not properly educated on the science that they are professing to be knowledgable of.Can you name a creationist who publishes outside of his field of expertise? We'll wait. :chuckle:

Heck, can you name one who publishes without a degree?

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:36 AM
Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Antibiotic resistance:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/antibiotic_resistance.htm
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360

Read then get back to me. Mmkay?

Dude....don't follow every creationist down every rabbit trail they put before you. Stick to your topic, and make them do the same.

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 10:39 AM
Dude....don't follow every creationist down every rabbit trail they put before you. Stick to your topic, and make them do the same.

Yeah. Stick to your topic. :thumb:

You asked for evidence of a previously perfect world, right?

Respond sensibly to the evidence that has been provided to you. :up:

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:40 AM
Absolutely not

If it's logical that everything has a beginning, then God must also have a beginning. Saying "he is eternal" violates your own logic. If God can be eternal, why not the universe?

Not within the laws of physics that came into being when the universe was created. Before that, your claim has no validity

See my last response above

i'll come back to this


Oh how I doubt you based on conversations in the politics forum. In fact I'm certain you're lying.

But I'll happily tell you that I received a BS in organic chemistry.

my bachelors is in general chemistry, my masters is in an applied field of chemistry heavy on toxicological analysis - my thesis project concerned gc mass spec work that was cutting edge at the time (twenty years ago)

not sure why any discussions i've had in the politics forum should give you cause to doubt me :idunno:

and my group is due to meet soon to cobble together a paper for sociology, so i'll prolly be gone for a while


and i loved organic - iirc, we used streitweiser and heathcock

Yorzhik
October 14th, 2015, 10:44 AM
Welp.....I backed off completely gave this a couple days in hope that someone would offer what I was asking for: scientific evidence of a pre-sin world or of a time when all creatures were vegetarians and nobody died. So far the closest thing I've gotten (and it's not close to being scientific) is "Genesis 1." If that counts as science then so does The Odyssey, meaning that scylla and cyclops are real. That's doubtful

So can the creationists here admit that there is NO scientific evidence for their origin story, and that it's simply a belief with no substantiating evidence?
And finally quit trumpeting that "science supports Genesis"?
With your demonstration of logic here, I doubt you've ever conversed on the subject. Thus, you aren't qualified to create a conclusion that means anything.

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:45 AM
Because as 6days has admitted, creationism and evolution is a belief, not science.

you keep forgetting that part

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:46 AM
Ah. A sociology student. :chuckle:

Hey! :sibbie:

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:51 AM
you keep forgetting that part

Again we see your reading comprehension issues. I specifically addressed that in post #8 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4486322&postcount=8), which was to you. :duh:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:51 AM
Can you name a creationist who publishes outside of his field of expertise? We'll wait. :chuckle:

Heck, can you name one who publishes without a degree?

Ken Ham, Bodie Hodge. That's literally just off the top of my head

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:52 AM
Dude....don't follow every creationist down every rabbit trail they put before you. Stick to your topic, and make them do the same.

I'll try. But I felt those sources adequately ended that side conversation

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:54 AM
With your demonstration of logic here, I doubt you've ever conversed on the subject. Thus, you aren't qualified to create a conclusion that means anything.

Hilariously enough, I'm actually more qualified than many well known creationists. Not that I'm that qualified, but that's the point. Many creationist "experts" are anything but

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:55 AM
Hey! :sibbie:

Wait.....so you're openly admitting you don't have two chemistry degrees?


If you want to be a good liar you'll need some consistency, son

Yorzhik
October 14th, 2015, 10:55 AM
If that's true then why has it been consistently being accepted at increasing numbers in the scientific community over the past 100 years? Now it's to the point that it's almost unanimous among scientists that evolution is very real and observable (north of 99%).

So if science is making it appear more and more ridiculous every day, why don't the scientists think that?
For 2 good reasons. The cost of believing in common descent is very low because as an idea, common descent has little if any bearing on anything scientific. And then, the price of not believing in common descent is very high because one will lose their job for questioning the common descent dogma.

Now, you do have a good point in that common descentists have consensus. But since you'll have to admit that this is a highly controversial topic, you should put the weight of consensus on hold until you've studied both sides. Now, the best argument for creation is the bible itself, but I'll cut you some slack if you only want to look at the physical science of the matter. Get back to me when you've found the good points that the YEC position makes in that context.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:57 AM
my bachelors is in general chemistry, my masters is in an applied field of chemistry heavy on toxicological analysis - my thesis project concerned gc mass spec work that was cutting edge at the time (twenty years ago)

not sure why any discussions i've had in the politics forum should give you cause to doubt me :idunno:

and my group is due to meet soon to cobble together a paper for sociology, so i'll prolly be gone for a while


and i loved organic - iirc, we used streitweiser and heathcock
Ignore my comment above this one. You've provided enough here to convince me to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have the degrees you claim to have.

ok doser
October 14th, 2015, 10:58 AM
delete

Yorzhik
October 14th, 2015, 10:58 AM
Hilariously enough, I'm actually more qualified than many well known creationists. Not that I'm that qualified, but that's the point. Many creationist "experts" are anything but
No, your inability to think betrays what you apparently consider qualifies you.

Why don't you go back to the post I was responding to and admit where your logic went off the rails, then we can talk qualifications.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:59 AM
you don;t read so good, do you?

i have a BS in chemistry and I have an MS in Chemistry

as well as a MEd

and i'm back in school on a PhD track

and yes, i'm taking a sociology class this fall

Keep reading

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 10:59 AM
I'll try. But I felt those sources adequately ended that side conversation

Of course they won't. Regardless though, you need to stick to your original topic. Believe me, I've seen countless threads like this where creationists are asked to give evidence, and they almost always end up turning into debates about evolution.

But then, since creationists here agree that creationism is a belief and not science, maybe the question is moot? :think:

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 10:59 AM
No, your inability to think betrays what you apparently consider qualifies you.

Why don't you go back to the post I was responding to and admit where your logic went off the rails, then we can talk qualifications.

Why don't you tell me where my logic went off the rails? I'm not aware that it did

Right Divider
October 14th, 2015, 11:08 AM
Because as 6days has admitted, creationism is a belief, not science.
Your "origin story" is also a belief system and not science.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:11 AM
Your "origin story" is also a belief system and not science.

Fortunately, origins has nothing to do with evolutionary theory

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:14 AM
But then, since creationists here agree that creationism is a belief and not science, maybe the question is moot? :think:

I'd like to believe that the creationists here see the flaws and are so close to seeing the light and accepting evolution. But the fundamentalist mindset is a stubborn beast. I hold out little hope that they see what we do: that creationism is a belief lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and that evolutionary theory is a belief substantiated by so much evidence that it's become a scientific theory

Right Divider
October 14th, 2015, 11:15 AM
Fortunately, origins has nothing to do with evolutionary theory
Of course it does. Descent with modification is perfectly well compatible with Creation. Only difference is that you believe that matter came alive on its own.

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 11:16 AM
Ken Ham, Bodie Hodge. That's literally just off the top of my head

Ken Ham has a Bachelors in Applied Science, used to teach and fronts an organization that produces laymen's material.

And from AIG:
Bodie [Hodge] attended Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and received a BS and MS in mechanical engineering. His specialty was a subset of mechanical engineering based in advanced materials processing, particularly starting powders.

He conducted research for his master’s degree through a grant from Lockheed Martin and developed a New Method of Production of Submicron Titanium Diboride. The new process was able to make titanium diboride cheaper, faster, and with higher quality. This technology is essential for some nanotechnologies.

Bodie published two peer-reviewed articles (with his advisor) on the subjects:

R. Koc, C. Meng, and D. B. Hodge,“New Method for Synthesis of Metal Carbides, Nitrides, and Carbonitrides,” Annual Progress Report Advanced Industrial Materials Program, 1998.

R. Koc and D. B. Hodge, “Production of TiB2 from a Precursor Containing Carbon Coated TiO2 and B4C,” Journal of Materials Science Letters, 1999.

During his years at SIUC, Bodie continued his personal study of biblical apologetics and began teaching this topic to a junior high Sunday school class. While at SIUC, he was the president of one of the few Christian student organizations, Christians Unlimited, and was also an officer in the student chapter of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.You're not very good at "off the top off your head." :chuckle:

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 11:19 AM
I'd like to believe that the creationists here see the flaws and are so close to seeing the light and accepting evolution. But the fundamentalist mindset is a stubborn beast. I hold out little hope that they see what we do: that creationism is a belief lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and that evolutionary theory is a belief substantiated by so much evidence that it's become a scientific theory

So your tactic is to ask a question, demand evidence and then run away when presented with it? :AMR:

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 11:21 AM
Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Antibiotic resistance:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/antibiotic_resistance.htm
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360

Read then get back to me. Mmkay?
Those are full of errors so mindboggling that they aren't even funny. So you've got nothing?

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 11:22 AM
Those are full of errors so mindboggling that they aren't even funny. So you've got nothing?

:rotfl:

:mock: Evolutionists.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:38 AM
Of course it does. Descent with modification is perfectly well compatible with Creation. Only difference is that you believe that matter came alive on its own.

Do you believe in evolution, just not abiogenesis?

The two are unrelated by the way, as I mentioned

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:40 AM
Ken Ham has a Bachelors in Applied Science, used to teach and fronts an organization that produces laymen's material.

And from AIG:
Bodie [Hodge] attended Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and received a BS and MS in mechanical engineering. His specialty was a subset of mechanical engineering based in advanced materials processing, particularly starting powders.

He conducted research for his master’s degree through a grant from Lockheed Martin and developed a New Method of Production of Submicron Titanium Diboride. The new process was able to make titanium diboride cheaper, faster, and with higher quality. This technology is essential for some nanotechnologies.

Bodie published two peer-reviewed articles (with his advisor) on the subjects:

R. Koc, C. Meng, and D. B. Hodge,“New Method for Synthesis of Metal Carbides, Nitrides, and Carbonitrides,” Annual Progress Report Advanced Industrial Materials Program, 1998.

R. Koc and D. B. Hodge, “Production of TiB2 from a Precursor Containing Carbon Coated TiO2 and B4C,” Journal of Materials Science Letters, 1999.

During his years at SIUC, Bodie continued his personal study of biblical apologetics and began teaching this topic to a junior high Sunday school class. While at SIUC, he was the president of one of the few Christian student organizations, Christians Unlimited, and was also an officer in the student chapter of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.You're not very good at "off the top off your head." :chuckle:

Fair enough, Ken Ham has a degree. Just not a doctorate. You'll notice he's Mr. Ken Ham, not Dr. Ken Ham.

Bodie I'm dead wrong on. His doctorate is in a field unrelated to biology but is a doctorate nonetheless. I stand corrected there

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 11:41 AM
I'd like to believe that the creationists here see the flaws and are so close to seeing the light and accepting evolution.

I'd like to believe that too, but reality won't cooperate. :chuckle:


But the fundamentalist mindset is a stubborn beast. I hold out little hope that they see what we do: that creationism is a belief lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and that evolutionary theory is a belief substantiated by so much evidence that it's become a scientific theory

This isn't about science, data, or analyses for them. It's about their religious beliefs and the psychology of fundamentalism. As you've seen with Right Divider's response to your post, showing creationists data is like showing pork rib recipes to Muslims.....in both cases they aren't the slightest bit interested and will reject it out of hand.

About the only thing these threads are good for is entertainment. Creationists are pretty much a laughingstock across the internet, and this place has quite a few who are extremely entertaining.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:41 AM
So your tactic is to ask a question, demand evidence and then run away when presented with it? :AMR:

I want what I asked for in the op.

GuySmiley
October 14th, 2015, 11:42 AM
:rotfl:

:mock: Evolutionists.
Those links are worth reading though. You'll get insight into how a finch can turn into a finch, and bacteria evolved into bacteria.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:43 AM
Those are full of errors so mindboggling that they aren't even funny. So you've got nothing?

This is why presenting evidence to creationists, in my experiences, proves fruitless. They don't even read them, and even if they did they would disregard them because they come from real scientists. We all know that scientists are evil and their only goal is to spread atheism around the world

Yorzhik
October 14th, 2015, 11:47 AM
Why don't you tell me where my logic went off the rails? I'm not aware that it did
Here's an analogy: If you can't come up with evidence for the missing ancestral fossils in the Cambrian, there is no evidence for common descent.

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 11:48 AM
This is why presenting evidence to creationists, in my experiences, proves fruitless. They don't even read them, and even if they did they would disregard them because they come from real scientists. We all know that scientists are evil and their only goal is to spread atheism around the world

Creationism, in addition to being a belief (and not science), is basically reflexive denialism. Their only response to actual science is merely to deny it, without looking at it or even thinking about it. "It's supportive of evolution? Then it's wrong. QED."

Creationism requires so much denial of reality, it is impossible to advocate honestly.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:50 AM
Those links are worth reading though. You'll get insight into how a finch can turn into a finch, and bacteria evolved into bacteria.

Actually, it's how one species of finch evolved into about a dozen different species of finch, each with its own beak structure and size modifications that allow each species to feed on different food types.

Actually, it's how bacteria with previously no ability to resist drugs have rapidly developed an ability to resist nearly all antibiotics in existence, which is obviously a huge genetic change.

Given we haven't had anything close to enough time to observe (as an example) an amphibian evolve into a reptile, what we have observed is the strongest evidence that we could possibly expect to find in such a short span of time.

Maybe artificial selection is more your speed. Want to go into that and find out how an elephant sized bull was changed into every cow species and breed alive today?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:50 AM
Here's an analogy: If you can't come up with evidence for the missing ancestral fossils in the Cambrian, there is no evidence for common descent.

What exactly is missing?

There was an extinction event, and most species around today came from the survivors. There are ancestral fossils. And there are also fossils of animals that were wiped out then. What else do you want?

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 11:56 AM
I want what I asked for in the op.

And you got it. Your response was to run for the hills.

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 11:58 AM
And you got it. Your response was to run for the hills.

Me and the whole scientific community I guess. Sounds likely

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 12:00 PM
Me and the whole scientific community I guess. Sounds likely

I told you. This is standard creationist practice here at ToL. Dodge questions until the thread gets about 6+ pages long, then claim they answered the questions, making sure to never actually show where (e.g., via post # or link).

It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Yorzhik
October 14th, 2015, 12:24 PM
What exactly is missing?

There was an extinction event, and most species around today came from the survivors. There are ancestral fossils. And there are also fossils of animals that were wiped out then. What else do you want?
Quite right. I wasn't clear. It would have been more clear to say "of the Cambrian Radiation", not "in the Cambrian."

Does that clear it up for you?

Greg Jennings
October 14th, 2015, 12:30 PM
Quite right. I wasn't clear. It would have been more clear to say "of the Cambrian Radiation", not "in the Cambrian."

Does that clear it up for you?

Sort of. But I addressed this as well. We have ancestral fossils dating from this period, and we can look at later specimens to see gradual change in the survivors of the Cambrian extinction into different forms.

Any and every ecological niche opened by the extinction was gradually filled by the descendants of survivors over the next few million years

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 12:34 PM
Sort of. But I addressed this as well. We have ancestral fossils dating from this period, and we can look at later specimens to see gradual change in the survivors of the Cambrian extinction into different forms.

Any and every ecological niche opened by the extinction was gradually filled by the descendants of survivors over the next few million years

See? Again a thread asking creationists for evidence turns into a debate about evolution.

Same script, different cast. :rolleyes:

Yorzhik
October 14th, 2015, 12:42 PM
Sort of. But I addressed this as well. We have ancestral fossils dating from this period, and we can look at later specimens to see gradual change in the survivors of the Cambrian extinction into different forms.

Any and every ecological niche opened by the extinction was gradually filled by the descendants of survivors over the next few million years
"Sort of"

I guess that is the best we can hope for.

Right Divider
October 14th, 2015, 12:47 PM
Do you believe in evolution, just not abiogenesis?

In the plant and animal worlds, things change within the limits of their genetic variability. They do not just continuously change without limit. That is an observable and repeatable phenomenon.


The two are unrelated by the way, as I mentioned
Actually, they are intimately related. You just want to distract from the real issue.

Right Divider
October 14th, 2015, 01:24 PM
Actually, it's how one species of finch evolved into about a dozen different species of finch, each with its own beak structure and size modifications that allow each species to feed on different food types.

Variation, yes. New creature... no.


Actually, it's how bacteria with previously no ability to resist drugs have rapidly developed an ability to resist nearly all antibiotics in existence, which is obviously a huge genetic change.

How huge? And to you this is "proof" that all life on earth evolved from a single creature that itself came to life by itself.


Given we haven't had anything close to enough time to observe (as an example) an amphibian evolve into a reptile, what we have observed is the strongest evidence that we could possibly expect to find in such a short span of time.

Ah yes, the old "time" problem. So instead of accepting that there are signification limitations on what we can observe, you still want to extrapolate these small observable changes into any goes change without limits. That's not science.


Maybe artificial selection is more your speed. Want to go into that and find out how an elephant sized bull was changed into every cow species and breed alive today?
Sure... go ahead.

6days
October 14th, 2015, 01:37 PM
Fair enough, Ken Ham has a degree. Just not a doctorate. You'll notice he's Mr. Ken Ham, not Dr. Ken Ham.

Bodie I'm dead wrong on. His doctorate is in a field unrelated to biology but is a doctorate nonetheless. I stand corrected there
Are people such as Richard Dawkins unqualified to speak on topics that they don't have a doctorate in? Or, are you only opposed to those who disagree with your belief system?

6days
October 14th, 2015, 01:40 PM
Acually, it's how one species of finch evolved into about a dozen different species of finch, each with its own beak structure and size modifications that allow each species to feed on different food types.

Excellent example of the Biblical creation model. The genetic information in finches allowed them to adapt and survive to a changing environment.

Actually, it's how bacteria with previously no ability to resist drugs have rapidly developed an ability to resist nearly all antibiotics in existence, which is obviously a huge genetic change.

Your example is again strong evidence supporting the Biblical model. Bacteria can adapt rapidly, based on pre-existing information and mechanisms. (Bacteria pre-antibiotics, still had antibiotic resistance / check Franklin expedition)

Given we haven't had anything close to enough time to observe (as an example) an amphibian evolve into a reptile, what we have observed is the strongest evidence that we could possibly expect to find in such a short span of time.The 'savior' of evolutionism is the strong belief that anything is possible when you believe 'once upon a time, long long ago'.

Science shows that belief is ridiculous.*

Maybe artificial selection is more your speed. Want to go into that and find out how an elephant sized bull was changed into every cow species and breed alive today?
So would you say that *this is strong evidence that they are the same kind of animal? Your example fits the Biblical model. (Likewise a wolf *and poodle are the same created kind...the poodle is essentially a mutated / loss of genetic variety of the original created kind)

Stripe
October 14th, 2015, 01:42 PM
Me and the whole scientific community I guess. Sounds likely

To be fair, most of the "scientific community" would not have the courage to ask the quests you did. Now if only you could deal with the answer as well. :up:

Jose Fly
October 14th, 2015, 02:05 PM
Excellent example of the Biblical creation model.

Why do you keep calling it "the Biblical creation model", when it's just a belief that hasn't contributed anything to science?

Right Divider
October 14th, 2015, 03:03 PM
Why do you keep calling it "the Biblical creation model", when it's just a belief that hasn't contributed anything to science?
Because your definition of "science" is whacked.

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 12:21 PM
Why do you keep calling it "the Biblical creation model", when it's just a belief that hasn't contributed anything to science?




Jose, there are two things that need to be modeled. 1, the initial creation; 2, the global flood.

Both of these things are things which people have tried to explain ever since...creation. There are 'native' explanations which would not possibly have the technological sophistication that we have today, but that does not make them inaccurate. (I suggest reading Lewis' essay 'Horrid Red Things' in GOD IN THE DOCK on this. It is a very sensible history of science). There is a primitive way of expressing what pain is compared to the modern way. But there is no mistaking that the ancient description is about pain, that it is awful, that it is relentless without some kind of remedy, etc. They tended to be free of isolation or compartmentalization in strictly scientific questions.

As an ex., see the Modoc (N California) legend about the divine family wishing to live on earth after the global flood. 1, the reason for getting 'down' out of heaven is because it was now too cold. (This is an inexact but useful indication of worldwide weather changing after the flood). By comparison, Gen 1-11 sounds very 'modern' in how it indicates this.

2, when the daughter of the god dares to go to the top of Mt Shasta's crater and tell Wind to stop blowing so hard (the smoke was being sucked down into the crater where the divine family lived), part of her motivation is that she has heard it is now possible to see the ocean, and she had never seen it. I mention this one because if you know your geo-mythology (the study of how legends themselves were transported around the earth and have many unusual--inconsquential--details in common [like a family of 8 in a huge survival ship]), you know that this matches up with continental drift, but is saying that it happened suddenly. It is now, after the convulsive, cataclysmic global flood possible to see the ocean from Mt Shasta. That is what the current models of the Genesis flood are saying about CTP. Land masses split, moved and crashed into each other with volcanic activity and with indications of speed that are not seen today they only have a trace of the momentum left.

One figure in Gen 1-11 seems to have made a 'science' out of learning about this and was named Peleg which means divided--'the earth was divided during his time'--right after the flood. So again, by comparison, Gen 1-11 sounds very modern in how it explains this. However Peleg collected his data, his is a statement of global reach. (There is also the fact that his life spans from right after the flood to Babel when there is a division of another kind, and that that is the reason for his name).

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 02:07 PM
Does Genesis 30:37-39 count as a good example of the biblical creation model?:rolleyes:

Stripe
October 15th, 2015, 02:10 PM
Does Genesis 30:37-39 count as a good example of the biblical creation model?:rolleyes:

:AMR:

No. That's genetics.

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 02:11 PM
:AMR:

No. That's genetics.

Are biblical genetics as dependable as biblical creation?

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 02:37 PM
Jose, there are two things that need to be modeled. 1, the initial creation; 2, the global flood.

Why? They're beliefs, not science.

Stripe
October 15th, 2015, 02:48 PM
Are biblical genetics as dependable as biblical creation?

Of course.

The Bible is God's word. Trusting Him is always OK.

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 02:49 PM
Of course.

The Bible is God's word. Trusting Him is always OK.

:thumb: Respectfully, you've said all I need to know. :e4e:

Stripe
October 15th, 2015, 02:50 PM
:thumb: Respectfully, you've said all I need to know. :e4e:

It's hard to imagine how that response could be disrespectful. :)

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 02:55 PM
It's hard to imagine how that response could be disrespectful. :)

LOL. I've been misunderstood a few times recently online, so I try very heard to be clear. S'pecially with my buddies. :yoshi:

Right Divider
October 15th, 2015, 03:02 PM
Are biblical genetics as dependable as biblical creation?
Yes, they are both 100% reliable.

Right Divider
October 15th, 2015, 03:03 PM
Why? They're beliefs, not science.
As is your belief that matter just comes to life on its own.

MrDeets
October 15th, 2015, 04:13 PM
Yes, they are both 100% reliable.

:up: Again, thank you. That's all the info I need.:jump:

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 04:47 PM
Why? They're beliefs, not science.



But the earth is actually here. The earth is not a "belief"; it was actually produced. The models are renditions as to how with more or less persuasive merit.

The global flood is an actual event as well. The models are attempts to (same). Massive amounts of force are needed to produce what is now here, but not massive amounts of time. R x T = P. Obviously when Rate is high, time is low, because P is the product we are both talking about. The earth shows evidence of very high rates. T. Walker, Australian geologist: "How do you get 2000 feet of sediment on top of a mile of bedrock and put the sandwich a mile above sea level? But wait: the sediment came from New England 2000 miles away and pretty much blasted out Monument Valley on its way. And it left a 150 mile slurry full of nautiloids running down to Las Vegas. Likewise central Australia is now believed to be rapid deposit sediment."

"No one talked about Monterey Canyon in my whole career in geology in the university." --E. Silvestru, Romanian born geologist

"Yosemite's domes could have been produced in as few as 5 hours" --Clemens in the London Geological Association journal

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 04:57 PM
But the earth is actually here. The earth is not a "belief"; it was actually produced.

?????????? Has anyone said otherwise?


The models are renditions as to how with more or less persuasive merit.

But the creationism is just a belief that doesn't contribute to science. Why build a model based on that? You might as well build a model based on The Iliad.

Right Divider
October 15th, 2015, 06:17 PM
:up: Again, thank you. That's all the info I need.:jump:
It's certainly more than you had before.:yoshi:

Interplanner
October 15th, 2015, 08:12 PM
?????????? Has anyone said otherwise?



But the creationism is just a belief that doesn't contribute to science. Why build a model based on that? You might as well build a model based on The Iliad.

'Has anyone said otherwise...' I put my response that way to get your attention. You sound like I'm not talking about the same place. That's also why I gave you the R x T = P formula. U'ism says R has to be very, very slow. Nonsense. I will never forget the first time I heard Dr. Brown remark about the three Torres peaks in Patagonia: they don't look like that when they have moved a half inch a year for millions of years. They look like they moved 50mph and crashed.

re Gen 1-11 and Illiad.
Not at all, it is reality-based. If you study geo-mythology, you will find that there is a deluge (pun) of cultures with extremely similar material, which the best minds in Oxford etc., say are disintegrations from what Gen 1-11 said. It is not a human compilation. It is validated down the line by later prophets and Christ, by its geographic or material references, etc. Yes, it has odd things in, but no different than the rest of the Bible in which there are supernatural instances.

You can't just dismiss an infinite, intelligent designing deity out of hand. It will be a stretch for you, for sure, but that is not a reason either. We now have many quotes by scientists that they admit that they simply select not to consider God in any equations, by brute will. That's why you should read Lewis "Religion and Science" conversation about the role of the detective. The role of the detective is to be suspicious no matter what anyone else is saying about an incident.

Lyell and T. Huxley tried to censor suspicion by villifying anyone who integrated the Bible or Moses and the geologic record.

I'm still bothered by your term 'contribution.' D. Ager wrote THE NEW CATASTROPHISM. I don't know that he is a Christian but he sure knows the holes in U'ism and shows the evidence for catastrophism (the deluge is a type of catastrophism). That is a contribution when a person can look at all that is going on and express a new rendition.

Jonahdog
October 16th, 2015, 05:24 AM
The global flood is an actual event as well. The models are attempts to (same). Massive amounts of force are needed to produce what is now here, but not massive amounts of time. R x T = P.

And you know this how?

Stripe
October 16th, 2015, 08:44 AM
And you know this how?

Evidence.

User Name
October 16th, 2015, 09:50 AM
Evidence.

And when you say "evidence" you actually mean faith, right? (Hebrews 11:3)

User Name
October 16th, 2015, 10:08 AM
If science can prove it, why does anyone have to have faith?

If science can't prove it, why should anyone believe it?

Jose Fly
October 16th, 2015, 10:12 AM
'Has anyone said otherwise...' I put my response that way to get your attention. You sound like I'm not talking about the same place.

Honestly, most of the time I can't figure out how what you post is at all relevant to my posts you claim to be responding to.

ok doser
October 16th, 2015, 10:16 AM
so you admit to recognizing that creationism is science?

good :thumb:

User Name
October 16th, 2015, 10:22 AM
so you admit to recognizing that creationism is science?

good :thumb:


As you know...creationism are beliefs about the past and don't contribute anything to science.

ok doser
October 16th, 2015, 10:30 AM
ironic, ain't it?

User Name
October 16th, 2015, 10:57 AM
ironic, ain't it?

Indeed. Is Creationism science, or is Creationism not science? I wish creationists could make up their minds.

ok doser
October 16th, 2015, 10:59 AM
Indeed. Is Creationism science, or is Creationism not science? I wish creationists could make up their minds.

why does it matter to you?

Right Divider
October 16th, 2015, 11:07 AM
Indeed. Is Creationism science, or is Creationism not science? I wish creationists could make up their minds.
You have a messed up idea of what science is.

User Name
October 16th, 2015, 11:08 AM
You have a messed up idea of what science is.

What is science?

MrDeets
October 16th, 2015, 11:18 AM
What is science?

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.Mabd17fdc7495fd1ed3320c2265a77854o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

Stripe
October 16th, 2015, 11:52 AM
And when you say "evidence" you actually mean faith, right? (Hebrews 11:3)
Nope. I mean evidence.

If science can prove it, why does anyone have to have faith?Why shouldn't we?

And science never proves anything. You have no idea what science is.


If science can't prove it, why should anyone believe it?
Because we have faith.

What is science?Yeah, you should figure that out before you try to contribute to threads like this. :up:

User Name
October 16th, 2015, 11:53 AM
What is science?


Yeah, you should figure that out before you try to contribute to threads like this.

Feel free to answer the question. :up:

ok doser
October 16th, 2015, 11:57 AM
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Stripe
October 16th, 2015, 12:01 PM
Feel free to answer the question. :up:

The question was: What evidence is there for the pre-fall world. I answered the question. Evolutionists have been ranting nonsense ever since.

When you've learned what science is — because you haven't a clue — perhaps you can contribute something of value.

Until then, you're nothing but a troll. :troll:

Nick M
October 16th, 2015, 12:04 PM
https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.Mabd17fdc7495fd1ed3320c2265a77854o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

Congratulations on such an idiot post. How disappointing. When the Hubble was started (aside from not working) it was going to see the origins of the universe. It would see the galaxies forming. Do you know what it saw? Do you know why? Think hard. I know you can, you have shown you can.

Right Divider
October 16th, 2015, 12:21 PM
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
That is one kind of science.

Some people get so upset because they can't put God under a microscope to study Him.

Science means knowledge. It is NOT limited to the physical and "natural" world.

Your systematic study of the physical world cannot prove nor disprove the existence of the Creator.

6days
October 16th, 2015, 02:01 PM
What is science?

You are not the first evolutionist that didn't know.

MrDeets
October 16th, 2015, 05:08 PM
Congratulations on such an idiot post. How disappointing. When the Hubble was started (aside from not working) it was going to see the origins of the universe. It would see the galaxies forming. Do you know what it saw? Do you know why? Think hard. I know you can, you have shown you can.

Lighten up, there, Nick. It's a light hearted meme.

Stripe
October 17th, 2015, 07:33 AM
You are not the first evolutionist that didn't know.

:darwinsm:

:mock: evolutionists.

User Name
December 18th, 2015, 10:36 PM
You are not the first evolutionist that didn't know.

Well whatever science is, we have it on your good authority that it has nothing to do with creationism, and that creationism contributes nothing to science.