Creation vs. Evolution II

[gcthomas]

Don't you think the stars could be spread faster than the speed of light?

Hubble expansion of the universe does spread stars apart effectively faster than light. Don't need a deity to copy nature here. It is humdrum and everyday.

 

[6days]

Hubble expansion of the universe does spread stars apart effectively faster than light. Don't need a deity to copy nature here. It is humdrum and everyday.

So.....God tells us He stretched out the heavens and 6,000 years later Hubble is a 'Johnny come lately'. . Distant starlight...no problem.

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isaiah 42:5

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jeremiah 10:12

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 9:8

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:7

Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psalms 104:2

saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Zechariah 12:1

 

[gcthomas]

[Bible quote-mining]

Psalm 104:2
The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; _ he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, _ and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Apparently, the heavens are like a canopy, or a tent. Not at all like the great void that it really is. Seems the bible doesn't agree with your idea of super-luminal expansion — not many tent canopies behave like that, do they?

 

[6days]

Psalm 104:2
The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; _ he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, _ and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Apparently, the heavens are like a canopy, or a tent.

Sure....
He stretched them out.
Distant starlight ....no problem

 

[gcthomas]

No GC. The heavens are not like a tent. He stretched out the heavens like a tent (or canopy). The verses tell us God spread the heavens and provides imagery of how we spread, or stretch things out.
Distant starlight ....no problem

Yup, the vague words can be twisted to mean whatever you'd like them to mean. The expansion of the universe is nothing like 'spreading out like a tent', but that won't stop toy claiming that or is some sorry of scientific prediction. But then, you don't believe in real scientific method, substituting your own self serving pseudoscience instead. And you'll never accept real science.

 

[6days]

Yup, the vague words can be twisted to mean whatever you'd like them to mean. The expansion of the universe is nothing like 'spreading out like a tent', but that won't stop toy claiming that or is some sorry of scientific prediction. But then, you don't believe in real scientific method, substituting your own self serving pseudoscience instead. And you'll never accept real science.

No matter if the heavens are imagery of a tent...or if its imagery of stretching out like a tent; distant starlight is no problem. We don't need to rely on evolutionary god of the gaps, like black holes driving the evolution of new galaxies, expansion faster than the speed of light, dark matter, dark energy Etc,.
The evidence is consistent with a super intelligent designer and lawgiver. In the beginning, God created...

 

[redfern]

Distant starlight ....no problem

Help me understand this. Science thinks the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is almost 3 million LY away. Obviously you YECs can’t accept light from M31 dawdling along for the last 3 million years to reach my telescope tonight. So first question – is M31 actually 3 million LY distant from us?

 

[redfern]

Snelling does NOT say meteorites are billions of years old. He says … isochron “age” for these groups of meteorites … cannot be their true real-time age, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years

Snelling repeatedly asserts that scientific measurements based on radiology consistently show meteorites to be 4.5 Ga. You claim that science supports the Biblical creation account. Snelling looks pretty clear in not accepting the measured radiological ages because of “the biblical paradigm”. But that is religion, not science. For science to support religion, it would need to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion, which then is found to agree with what the religion says. Ya don’t take the answer science by itself comes up with and distort it by a factor of nearly a million times to agree with your dogma, and then pretend science confirmed what your Holy Book said.

 

[6days]

For science to support religion, it would need to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion, which then is found to agree with what the religion says.

We agree.
And that is why evolutionism is not science. It is a non-falsifiable belief system. When 'rabbits' are found in the Cambrian, they are explained away. It is a belief system that is like a fog, fitting any landscape. Ex. Both good design and poor design are considered as evidence for evolutionism.

 

[6days]

*So first question – is M31 actually 3 million LY distant from us?

Yes.*
First question - Is the edge of the visible / observable universe about 46 billion LY from us?
Second question- What is the one way speed of light? (Is it a convention?)

 

[gcthomas]

No matter if the heavens are imagery of a tent...or if its imagery of stretching out like a tent; distant starlight is no problem. We don't need to rely on evolutionary god of the gaps, like black holes driving the evolution of new galaxies, expansion faster than the speed of light, dark matter, dark energy Etc,.
The evidence is consistent with a super intelligent designer and lawgiver. In the beginning, God created...

Your cursory sideways glance at the YEC websites is consistent with your very specific and largely unpopular reading of a human written book of unknown provenance. Well done. If you don't think too hard and look at opposite views with that squint you have, then I'm sure all your claims seem reasonable to you.

But that IS just you. Those with expertise in the fields (REAL expertise, mind) disagree with you and you are completely unable to actually read what they have written, if your endless cut'n'pastes from YEC quote mining books is anything to go by.

 

[Jose Fly]

Before examining the quotes 6days provides, I want to note that I have tried to get 6days to actually read the papers he quotes from.

He won't do it. He neither understands nor possesses any of these papers.

It wasn't that long ago that I went through this same exercise with 6days on the topic of pseudogenes. Just like here, he quoted a handful of papers and claimed they contradicted evolutionary theory and supported the "Biblical model" (whatever that is). And just like you have done, I accessed those papers, read them, and showed exactly how 6days was dishonestly misrepresenting them. In at least one case, the paper had an entire section entitled "Evolution and Pseudogenes" where they described how all the work they were describing had only been possible via the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry (it told them what to compare, where to look, and what to look for). Yet 6days tried to claim it as supporting "the Biblical model" and contradicting evolution!

Seriously, the guy doesn't have an honest bone in his body.

Of particular relevance here is a book from a creationist named John Sanford. I have Sanford’s book, and I have strong suspicions that 6days does too.

Oh sure....he likes Sanford a lot. And I like him too, given how he is a very good illustration of how productive evolutionary theory is and how utterly useless creationism is.

Sanford’s book can best be described a Bible of quote mines extracted from scientific papers dealing with genetics.

So basically what you've done here is shown that not only is 6days fundamentally dishonest, Sanford is as well.

Well done. :up:

Neel’s paper was specifically focused on studying genetic mutations in children born to atomic bomb survivors.

So both 6days and Sanford lied about the paper.

The next scientists that 6days quotes from (again found in Sanford’s book) are geneticists Kevin Higgins and Michael Lynch, at the U of Oregon, in a 2000 paper titled “Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation”, direct link to free PDF copy is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2928.full.pdf.

I actually know Dr. Lynch (professionally, not personally) and have attended a few of his workshops. Looking over the paper 6days cited and knowing the world in which Lynch works, it's obvious that he is not talking about humans and instead is talking about conservation biology and management. For example, the discussion states...

"Early work suggested that demography is usually of more immediate importance to biological conservation than population genetics in determining the minimum viable sizes of wild populations."

So it's obvious what that paper is about (it ain't humans) and that 6days and Sanford are again lying.

I recommend those who honestly want some first-hand familiarity with the article take the time to go through it. A modest comfort level with mathematics and technical terms will be needed if you want to get into the core ideas of the article.

And keep in mind too that he's actually talking about salmonid population structures (metapopulations vs. panmictic populations). But of course neither Sanford nor 6days bothered to mention that part.

Now I will skip to the last sentence Higgins and Lynch close with, and see how well it comports with 6day’s claim that these authors agree that accumulating slightly deleterious mutations will lead to extinction. They are summarizing extinction due to what they call “habitat fragmentation”:

…there might be sufficient time for habitat remediation that would presumably restore efficient selection against deleterious mutations.​

And if anyone thinks habitat fragmentation is an issue for humans, well....they need to stop and give it a second thought.

Now moving on to 6days’ next attempt to portray geneticists as seeing extinction as a certainty, we find him again turning to Sanford’s quote mine book and misrepresenting Dr. James F. Crow, who was a geneticist at the U of Wisconsin. Dr. Crow’s article is available at http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full.

The ellipses in the middle of the quote are where Sanford (and 6days) omit some interesting text (though I doubt 6days knew what that omitted text said).

Again, well done.

You've conclusively shown once again that 6days and his sources are nothing more than habitual, unrepentant liars.

As long as that remains the case, IMO we need to keep pointing that fact out. They are lying....constantly, and until they stop there's no reason to take anything they say at all seriously.

I mean....how many times does one person have to be busted lying before you conclude he's simply a pathological liar?

 

[gcthomas]

When 'rabbits' are found in the Cambrian, they are explained away.

Rabbits have been found in the Cambrian? Really? Let's see the paper on that. (This should be funny)

 

[6days]

Rabbits have been found in the Cambrian? Really? Let's see the paper on that. (This should be funny)

We have discussed 'rabbits' before. I had posted this...
Precambrian 'rabbits' include things like soft dinosaur tissue or exquisitely preserved. "pristine" unfossilized wood in a diamond quarry / kimberlite dike dated at 53 million years. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045537

The fossil record is often baffling to evolutionists when 'rabbits' such as sophisticated eye designs are found, and out of sequence according to standard evolutionary thinking and dating. (Although ToE is flexible and accommodates improbable, unlikely / counter intuitive evidence).

We have long known that trilobites had one of the most sophisticated and complex eye designs of any creature; but now we see something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years have eyes that contain about 16,000 hexagonal 'lenses'. This is somewhat similar to house flies which have 3,000 and dragonflies with 28,000.

Dr John Patterson (evolutionist) said "The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye"
Nature#480 p237-240
Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.

Evolutionists often refuse the explanation that best fits the evidence... intelligent design indicates an Intelligent Designer. As an example of this blind faith......
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences#90
...arthropod eye evolution has remained controversial, because one of two seemingly unlikely evolutionary histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups....or, compound eyes have been been lost in a Seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages
(T.Oakley &C.Cunningham)

Perhaps they should consider more than just the 2 "seeming unlikely " choices. The evidence (sudden appearance and intelligently designed) fits what Gods Word tells us...
Bible wrote:
The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both

 

[redfern]

While discussing the relationship of Snelling’s AIG paper on radiological dating of meteorites to 6days' frequent assertion that “science supports the Biblical Creation model”, I said:

For science to support religion, it would need to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion, which then is found to agree with what the religion says.

6days agrees, and then immediately tries to sidetrack the discussion into a totally different direction:

We agree.

And that is why evolutionism is not science. It is a non-falsifiable belief system. When 'rabbits' are found in the Cambrian, they are explained away. It is a belief system that is like a fog, fitting any landscape. Ex. Both good design and poor design are considered as evidence for evolutionism.

Perhaps 6days can claim dementia due to his advancing age is to blame for such a blatant attempt to move our discussion away from meteorite dating. But I am not so afflicted with mental lapses, and note once again Snelling’s repeated and pointed statements that science has consistently and repeatedly measured meteorite dates at 4.5 Ga. In Snelling’s extended discussion of how to make this 4.5 Ga measurement dovetail with YEC beliefs he makes no secret that his motivation is his allegiance to a religious stance.

This well-affirmed scientific meteorite dating, and 6days’ concurrence that science must operate free of religious motivation pointedly falsifies 6days’ assertion that “science supports the Biblical Creation model”.

It also shows how false these gratuitous slaps at dating by Rosenritter are:

It's very easy when you come up with the answer you want before you do the calculations.

And

I recommend you read some of the posts here by 6Days. He's been pretty good about documentation of fraud with respect to dating mechanisms. About adjusting the dates after discovering tools in the area, etc etc etc. That subject has already been discussed, proved, and closed.

 

[KingdomRose]

Day (yom) has a variety of meanings in Hebrew and in English. I think I have said that several times. The meaning is always clear by the context in both languages.*
Haha...apologies... my post wasn't very clear. I will post it here now then try explain.
6days: "Outside of the creation account, the word yom/day is used hundreds of times in the OT. Can you show an example where the word 'day' might mean either a 24 hour day, or a long undetermined period of time? (I will help with the answer... the meaning is always easy to understand by the context). I suppled verses from Genesis 2 where the same word is used but with different meanings."

What I'm asking or saying is that we understand the meaning of the word by context. Are there instances outside of the creation account where the meaning is not clear? For ex. Could Jonah have been inside the fish for 3 undetermined periods of time? Could he have been in the fish for 3 daylight only periods? No...we understand by context.*

Yes...I did too. Thats why I assumed you had not read my post before you started arguing.

It seemed to me that you were contradicting yourself. I did read your post, more than once. What I replied was in response to your conceding that "day" COULD mean undetermined periods of time. Therefore, it's completely reasonable to me that the "days" of the creative periods (for the things on the earth) were periods of undetermined length. (This jibes with Science and what they have shown about the age of the earth.) What I said about God's day of rest also is reasonable to me, considering the scriptures that I cited. I don't want to argue....I am looking for respectful discussion. If I have been rude, I apologize.

 

[6days]

While discussing the relationship of Snelling’s AIG paper on radiological dating of meteorites..."

What you said was false. You claimed "a technically qualified YEC claims that the data strongly and quite consistently says meteorites are billions of years old". The technicaly qualified scientist you refer to says the universe is about 6,000 years old.

This well-affirmed scientific meteorite dating, and 6days’ concurrence that science must operate free of religious motivation pointedly falsifies 6days’ assertion that “science supports the Biblical Creation model”.

You confuse scientists with science. An atheist scientist does not put on a white lab coat and suddenly lose her bias about an Intelligent Desgner

 

[KingdomRose]

Yes...true. And I explained that was more so as Darwin aged. Atheist web sites often explain it like this..."However, he (Darwin) felt that science should be objective in nature, and was careful to keep any reference to God or a creator out of his work"

I hoped that I had added something useful to the discussion concerning Darwin (post #269).

 

[6days]

It seemed to me that you were contradicting yourself. I did read your post, more than once. What I replied was in response to your conceding that "day" COULD mean undetermined periods of time.

Yes... and I explained its always easy to understand by the context. You can't just use any willy nilly definition when God tells Joshua to march around Jericho a certain amount of days. The context of Genesis 1 does not allow for longer or shorter periods of time than the normal day that we now experience.

Therefore, it's completely reasonable to me that the "days" of the creative periods (for the things on the earth) were periods of undetermined length.

Actually that would be unreasonable and leads to compromise in the gospel

Will reply further later... I gotta run right now

 

[KingdomRose]

Bad news for radiometric dating

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Set aside "radiometric dating." It is irrefutably crystal clear to anyone who merely LOOKS at the geology of the earth that it has taken A LONG LONG TIME to form the canyons and the layers of deposits evident within the various geologic epochs, and the separation of Africa and South America, etc., which were formerly altogether....These things could not have happened in a brief period of time.