I thought I was YEC. What do MAC's believe?Yorzhik is a bit harder than YECs to pin down. I have concluded that he isn't a YEC nor an OAC, but a MAC (Middle Age Creationist).lain:
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
:rotfl:
alwight
New member
MACs are creationists who believe that there is no reason to restrict themselves to scientific or YEC timescales. They can have exactly the right amount of time as is required by whatever it is they happen to believe at the time. :think:
Last edited:
Any scientist with even a modicum of integrity will make that claim. Isn’t the real question – how to know what the “correct age” is? According to an article 6days linked to a while back, a creation scientist (R. H. Brown) seemed to have a pretty good handle on the mechanics and theory of C-14 dating, but then just assumed an initial level of C-14 in the environment that guaranteed they would get young earth dates from the equations. Assuming an initial level is fine, as long as one admits any disagreeing scientist has an equal right to assume whatever initial level he thinks was there. To move the testing away from personal preferences to actual science it takes sufficient evidence of what the initial background levels really were. That means evidence that is independent of what culture the scientist is from, independent of religious beliefs (no matter how deeply held), and independent of how the study is being funded.
That’s news to me. Are you seriously saying that dating labs don’t do calibration runs on their equipment?
I have seen numerous discussions about measurement discrepancies. “Samples that should be the same age” may not come out the same age for any of a variety of reasons – things like the inclusion of sand grains in mollusk shells, or contaminants in igneous rock flows, and so on. But radiological dating, when the proper precautions are taken, is reliable enough that it is widely used by geology labs all over the world. There are numerous studies published showing the measured data, outliers and all, and there most certainly are samples that show excellent data patterns within acceptable margins of error.
“Never question” is pure hyperbole. Claiming that scientists turn a blind eye to errors just to not threaten a grant is just a cheap indictment of the integrity of the scientists. If you were given a grant to do a scientific study, and you realized the answers you were getting in the study were not what had be anticipated, would you ignore the discrepancies?
Plentiful in the same way that there are a vast number of ancient scriptural fragments that have missing words, extra text, misspellings, etc. Does that mean the text of the Bible is just an unreliable mess? No, not at all. In spite of the competing manuscripts Biblical scholars are pretty confident they know what the original text said. When someone finds a previously unknown scroll or palimpsest with variants from the accepted Bible text, do you go into a frenzy? Like you say, the anomalies are plentiful.
In a similar way, if a cut through a hillside is being made for a new highway and periodically samples of the excavated material are taken in for dating, what would be the proper procedure? Previous geological surveys will probably give an idea of what to expect, and it may well be that 5 or 6 samples yield dates about as expected. But then the next sample yields a date that is way off from what was expected. You can expend a lot of effort trying to see why the anomaly, but it may be due to something as simple as a small pocket of unexpected minerals that some rodent had carried down into a burrow, or an erroneous instrument setting, or the sample was contaminated as it was being collected. Instead I would just take extra care on the next few samples, and see if they gave answers again in the expected range. If they do, I would write off the anomaly as just that – an anomaly that is probably not worth spending a lot of effort chasing.
iouae
Well-known member
Hi Duke
You directed me to the video by Dr Jack, a Harvard medical professor who gave his model for abiogenesis.
Finally, here's a very rudimentary yet insightful demonstration of simple replicators
I watched the video twice, and honestly did not think much of him
I put this video in the same category as "The four blood moons" by Hagee and "The Bible Code". Some folks are going to lap this up like a kitten laps warm milk.
I know what I write next will inadequately express how little I think of Jack's primitive "life-form", but I will do my best
1) Jack is trading on his credentials as a Harvard Professor of Medicine. Harvard sounds good. Professor sounds good. But what qualification does he have for explaining the origin of not-our-life- but one "form of life" which he invented?
I told you that people will believe anything, especially when the placebo comes from the witch-doctor/medicine-man.
So lets ignore his qualification, because when Ben Carson (a brain surgeon) talks politics, his qualification in brain surgery scores zero points in politics (and I like Ben).
2) Jack tells us that real "cell membranes are too efficient at what they do and need energy input to bring things into the cell, via special proteins" - this is a close paraphrase. And it is true. Real cells and real DNA,RNA take energy to work. To overcome this obstacle, Jack invents his own life form which consists of fatty acids which let stuff in and divides without an internal power source.
I could blow a soap bubble, or colony of soap bubbles, and one soap bubble could merge with others, and under the right conditions things could diffuse into the bubble etc. Or blowing onto the bubble, I could make one divide into two.
You would laugh me to scorn for saying I had invented a cell membrane, but Jacks fatty-acid vesicles are only slightly better than my bubbles.
I dare folks to read how complicated real cell membranes are. This site is a good place to start ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane
To code for a yeast cell's membrane takes 1/3 of the yeast cell's genes. The membrane selectively lets in what is needed for life, and lets out what is not needed. It also acts like a sense organ etc. It creates a tiny pond with just the right conditions for life inside the cell. This is no mean feat. All this is ignored by Jack.
3) Jack has his fatty vesicles (bubbles) sitting by an underwater hot vent, the heat of which softens the vesicle to let substances in. So Jack needs an external energy source unlike cells with an internal, autonomous supply. So his life would have limited distribution.
I don't think his vesicles would actually function as he says they do. Fat floats. Fatty acids, the longer chains, are insoluble. I don't see how his vesicles would not float to the surface of the water and away from the vent. This kind of impracticality makes me believe he has not actually tried this out, nor can demonstrate it. It's all hypothetical.
Also, fatty acids have a water-loving (hydrophilic) end, and a fatty (hydrophobic) end. In his demonstration he had the water-hating ends on the inside of the vesicle. I really doubt you could get this kind of vesicle filled with water, since the water inside would repel the fatty ends of the fatty acids inside the vesicle. In summary, where is his proof that such vesicles exist and behave as he says they do?
4) Next Jack admits that real cells DNA requires energy to replicate/ transcribe so he chooses another nucleotide which he says does not need energy. He gets strings of this nucleotide to replicate, mutate etc.
As Shania Twain sang "That don't impress me much"....
...for the following reasons...
a) does this nucleotide actually do so?
b) so what if it does so, since your phoney "DNA" cannot transcribe and make proteins/enzymes - so it is effectively totally useless.
c) All the things Jack says his cell can do, I bet a million non-existent $$ that he has no demonstration of it ever having happened - this phoney DNA inside its phoney cell membrane. He has combined a whole lot of who-knows-how-possible chemical processes together.
5) Even if his "proto-cell" behaved exactly as he says, he still has a big fat ZERO. This is not life, though it imitates a few of life's processes such as growth, feeding, competition etc.
6) Like I said before, only something demonstrating how REAL life structures and processes could spontaneously come together and propagate will satisfy me. If there is some other form of life possible, God alone would be smart enough to have thought of it, not Jack. Nobody in any lab has created life. I am not holding my breath for scientists to discover life anywhere else in the cosmos. Life exists on earth because only God is smart enough to have created it, and put it here. Read how complicated the cell membrane alone is. Hundreds of researchers could spend all of their lives studying the cell membrane alone, and still not understand it. And I marvel at how much they do understand, as the wiki article shows.
Only those who don't understand biology think that life inside a single cell is simple. To date, no computer can simulate or understand how the genes of the simplest cell translate into that cells functioning. To simplify it down to a show-and-tell style soap-bubble demonstration may fool a class of 9 year olds, but it just irks me. It irks me because it takes much longer to refute a nutty idea than to generate one. Thus, nutty ideas always outnumber refutations, and there are not enough lifetimes to shut down every loopy idea out there.
But I do thank you Duke for pointing me to the video because it is really interesting to know the kinds of arguments out there.
We have moved away from abiogenesis to variations anyway, have we not? I feel any discussion has to be rooted in real cell structures, not hypothetical, alternative ones.
You directed me to the video by Dr Jack, a Harvard medical professor who gave his model for abiogenesis.
Finally, here's a very rudimentary yet insightful demonstration of simple replicators
I watched the video twice, and honestly did not think much of him
I put this video in the same category as "The four blood moons" by Hagee and "The Bible Code". Some folks are going to lap this up like a kitten laps warm milk.
I know what I write next will inadequately express how little I think of Jack's primitive "life-form", but I will do my best
1) Jack is trading on his credentials as a Harvard Professor of Medicine. Harvard sounds good. Professor sounds good. But what qualification does he have for explaining the origin of not-our-life- but one "form of life" which he invented?
I told you that people will believe anything, especially when the placebo comes from the witch-doctor/medicine-man.
So lets ignore his qualification, because when Ben Carson (a brain surgeon) talks politics, his qualification in brain surgery scores zero points in politics (and I like Ben).
2) Jack tells us that real "cell membranes are too efficient at what they do and need energy input to bring things into the cell, via special proteins" - this is a close paraphrase. And it is true. Real cells and real DNA,RNA take energy to work. To overcome this obstacle, Jack invents his own life form which consists of fatty acids which let stuff in and divides without an internal power source.
I could blow a soap bubble, or colony of soap bubbles, and one soap bubble could merge with others, and under the right conditions things could diffuse into the bubble etc. Or blowing onto the bubble, I could make one divide into two.
You would laugh me to scorn for saying I had invented a cell membrane, but Jacks fatty-acid vesicles are only slightly better than my bubbles.
I dare folks to read how complicated real cell membranes are. This site is a good place to start ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane
To code for a yeast cell's membrane takes 1/3 of the yeast cell's genes. The membrane selectively lets in what is needed for life, and lets out what is not needed. It also acts like a sense organ etc. It creates a tiny pond with just the right conditions for life inside the cell. This is no mean feat. All this is ignored by Jack.
3) Jack has his fatty vesicles (bubbles) sitting by an underwater hot vent, the heat of which softens the vesicle to let substances in. So Jack needs an external energy source unlike cells with an internal, autonomous supply. So his life would have limited distribution.
I don't think his vesicles would actually function as he says they do. Fat floats. Fatty acids, the longer chains, are insoluble. I don't see how his vesicles would not float to the surface of the water and away from the vent. This kind of impracticality makes me believe he has not actually tried this out, nor can demonstrate it. It's all hypothetical.
Also, fatty acids have a water-loving (hydrophilic) end, and a fatty (hydrophobic) end. In his demonstration he had the water-hating ends on the inside of the vesicle. I really doubt you could get this kind of vesicle filled with water, since the water inside would repel the fatty ends of the fatty acids inside the vesicle. In summary, where is his proof that such vesicles exist and behave as he says they do?
4) Next Jack admits that real cells DNA requires energy to replicate/ transcribe so he chooses another nucleotide which he says does not need energy. He gets strings of this nucleotide to replicate, mutate etc.
As Shania Twain sang "That don't impress me much"....
...for the following reasons...
a) does this nucleotide actually do so?
b) so what if it does so, since your phoney "DNA" cannot transcribe and make proteins/enzymes - so it is effectively totally useless.
c) All the things Jack says his cell can do, I bet a million non-existent $$ that he has no demonstration of it ever having happened - this phoney DNA inside its phoney cell membrane. He has combined a whole lot of who-knows-how-possible chemical processes together.
5) Even if his "proto-cell" behaved exactly as he says, he still has a big fat ZERO. This is not life, though it imitates a few of life's processes such as growth, feeding, competition etc.
6) Like I said before, only something demonstrating how REAL life structures and processes could spontaneously come together and propagate will satisfy me. If there is some other form of life possible, God alone would be smart enough to have thought of it, not Jack. Nobody in any lab has created life. I am not holding my breath for scientists to discover life anywhere else in the cosmos. Life exists on earth because only God is smart enough to have created it, and put it here. Read how complicated the cell membrane alone is. Hundreds of researchers could spend all of their lives studying the cell membrane alone, and still not understand it. And I marvel at how much they do understand, as the wiki article shows.
Only those who don't understand biology think that life inside a single cell is simple. To date, no computer can simulate or understand how the genes of the simplest cell translate into that cells functioning. To simplify it down to a show-and-tell style soap-bubble demonstration may fool a class of 9 year olds, but it just irks me. It irks me because it takes much longer to refute a nutty idea than to generate one. Thus, nutty ideas always outnumber refutations, and there are not enough lifetimes to shut down every loopy idea out there.
But I do thank you Duke for pointing me to the video because it is really interesting to know the kinds of arguments out there.
We have moved away from abiogenesis to variations anyway, have we not? I feel any discussion has to be rooted in real cell structures, not hypothetical, alternative ones.
Last edited:
Dear DavisBJ,
You make me laugh! Do you actually think life has come about naturally {by nature}? Do you think that the Earth came by itself naturally? And the Universe is nature? What to you is nature? Any means of being besides believing it all has a Master over it? All of these MARVELOUS things have come about 'Naturally!!' ROTFL!!! I'm sorry I can't answer more of these posts, but I have to get up to go to radiation treatments and am very busy with other appts., etc. 2morrow, I won't be burdened in that respect. If what we have said here on this Thread, DavisBJ, hasn't gotten through to you yet, then I really doubt anything will. But you never know. The Lord works in mysterious ways!!
Michael
:rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture:
Last edited:
Hi Duke
You directed me to the video by Dr Jack, a Harvard medical professor who gave his model for abiogenesis.
Finally, here's a very rudimentary yet insightful demonstration of simple replicators
I watched the video twice, and honestly did not think much of him
I put this video in the same category as "The four blood moons" by Hagee and "The Bible Code". Some folks are going to lap this up like a kitten laps warm milk.
I know what I write next will inadequately express how little I think of Jack's primitive "life-form", but I will do my best
1) Jack is trading on his credentials as a Harvard Professor of Medicine. Harvard sounds good. Professor sounds good. But what qualification does he have for explaining the origin of not-our-life- but one "form of life" which he invented?
I told you that people will believe anything, especially when the placebo comes from the witch-doctor/medicine-man.
So lets ignore his qualification, because when Ben Carson (a brain surgeon) talks politics, his qualification in brain surgery scores zero points in politics (and I like Ben).
2) Jack tells us that real "cell membranes are too efficient at what they do and need energy input to bring things into the cell, via special proteins" - this is a close paraphrase. And it is true. Real cells and real DNA,RNA take energy to work. To overcome this obstacle, Jack invents his own life form which consists of fatty acids which let stuff in and divides without an internal power source.
I could blow a soap bubble, or colony of soap bubbles, and one soap bubble could merge with others, and under the right conditions things could diffuse into the bubble etc. Or blowing onto the bubble, I could make one divide into two.
You would laugh me to scorn for saying I had invented a cell membrane, but Jacks fatty-acid vesicles are only slightly better than my bubbles.
I dare folks to read how complicated real cell membranes are. This site is a good place to start ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane
To code for a yeast cell's membrane takes 1/3 of the yeast cell's genes. The membrane selectively lets in what is needed for life, and lets out what is not needed. It also acts like a sense organ etc. It creates a tiny pond with just the right conditions for life inside the cell. This is no mean feat. All this is ignored by Jack.
3) Jack has his fatty vesicles (bubbles) sitting by an underwater hot vent, the heat of which softens the vesicle to let substances in. So Jack needs an external energy source unlike cells with an internal, autonomous supply. So his life would have limited distribution.
I don't think his vesicles would actually function as he says they do. Fat floats. Fatty acids, the longer chains, are insoluble. I don't see how his vesicles would not float to the surface of the water and away from the vent. This kind of impracticality makes me believe he has not actually tried this out, nor can demonstrate it. It's all hypothetical.
Also, fatty acids have a water-loving (hydrophilic) end, and a fatty (hydrophobic) end. In his demonstration he had the water-hating ends on the inside of the vesicle. I really doubt you could get this kind of vesicle filled with water, since the water inside would repel the fatty ends of the fatty acids inside the vesicle. In summary, where is his proof that such vesicles exist and behave as he says they do?
4) Next Jack admits that real cells DNA requires energy to replicate/ transcribe so he chooses another nucleotide which he says does not need energy. He gets strings of this nucleotide to replicate, mutate etc.
As Shania Twain sang "That don't impress me much"....
...for the following reasons...
a) does this nucleotide actually do so?
b) so what if it does so, since your phoney "DNA" cannot transcribe and make proteins/enzymes - so it is effectively totally useless.
c) All the things Jack says his cell can do, I bet a million non-existent $$ that he has no demonstration of it ever having happened - this phoney DNA inside its phoney cell membrane. He has combined a whole lot of who-knows-how-possible chemical processes together.
5) Even if his "proto-cell" behaved exactly as he says, he still has a big fat ZERO. This is not life, though it imitates a few of life's processes such as growth, feeding, competition etc.
6) Like I said before, only something demonstrating how REAL life structures and processes could spontaneously come together and propagate will satisfy me. If there is some other form of life possible, God alone would be smart enough to have thought of it, not Jack. Nobody in any lab has created life. I am not holding my breath for scientists to discover life anywhere else in the cosmos. Life exists on earth because only God is smart enough to have created it, and put it here. Read how complicated the cell membrane alone is. Hundreds of researchers could spend all of their lives studying the cell membrane alone, and still not understand it. And I marvel at how much they do understand, as the wiki article shows.
Only those who don't understand biology think that life inside a single cell is simple. To date, no computer can simulate or understand how the genes of the simplest cell translate into that cells functioning. To simplify it down to a show-and-tell style soap-bubble demonstration may fool a class of 9 year olds, but it just irks me. It irks me because it takes much longer to refute a nutty idea than to generate one. Thus, nutty ideas always outnumber refutations, and there are not enough lifetimes to shut down every loopy idea out there.
But I do thank you Duke for pointing me to the video because it is really interesting to know the kinds of arguments out there.
We have moved away from abiogenesis to variations anyway, have we not? I feel any discussion has to be rooted in real cell structures, not hypothetical, alternative ones.
Dear iouae,
Thanks so very much for all of the hard work, the insightful words, and all of the time it took you to put this post together. I've got to run for now!! God Bless You Tons!!
Michael
And, no doubt you have spent time discussing the issue with those scientists.
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Here's the point with cause and effect everything has either always existed with no beginning and for no reason; Cause and effect going on into infinity with no primordial cause.; rendering everything by luck and everything meanigless.
(Most minds find this utter nonsense.)
Or there is one primordial uncaused phenomena that exists beyond the fish bowl universe it created for some reason. Our minds find this beyond our ability to fully comprehend.
Pride says but I can understand everything. The fish are desperately seeking to jump out of the fish bowl. The have no ability to measure with scientific methods what lies outside the bowl and to it understand fully, so that would rather believe the fish bowl is all there is.
iouae
Well-known member
Is this the new understated, non centered, normal font Michael?
It took me a while to figure out what was different about you.
I like this new you!!
Dear Michael,
Paradoxical as it may sound, you are the person who causes me to most regret some of the things I say. Not because what I say to /about you is factually in error, but that in saying some of those things in retrospect I realize I have lowered my own standards of conduct. For that I do apologize, and I concurrently thank Patrick Jane for stepping up to the task of politely reminding me that I am wrong in those actions.
In the future I hope I can keep my own penchant for sarcasm in check when I am addressing you. Many months ago I imposed what I called a “no-science diet” on my responses to you, and since I have pretty much avoided the fruitless task of trying to bring you up to speed scientifically. I will endeavor to expand that restriction in my responses to you to include any responses where I have a temptation to resort to mockery and denigration.
That still leaves issues between us that I think can be addressed forthrightly, realizing full well that you will disagree. I can only bridle my own tongue, and hope that what I say might have a tad of influence in your thinking. Typical of the things I am referring to is the issue of false prophecy about the rapture that did not happen. On a completely dead-serious note, I see last year’s debacle about the rapture and your trivializing that failure now as pretty crystal-clear proof that you have no divine insight or calling.
Anyway, I don’t object to you saying you are laughing about some things I say. That, in and of itself, might be all the positive feedback your ego requires. “Qua trell rento”, my friend.
Hi Iouae,
It's great to hear from you and I'm very glad that you have watched the animation (twice.
If you allow, I'd like to comment on some details.
But most importantly, I hope you have also read my previous posts in response to you, generally we should already be talking about something else
You must have realistic expectations.
And now, I hope your next post will be about Evo.....
Cheers.
It's great to hear from you and I'm very glad that you have watched the animation (twice
.If you allow, I'd like to comment on some details.
But most importantly, I hope you have also read my previous posts in response to you, generally we should already be talking about something else
Well for starters he's actually a professor of genetics with a background similar to yours in biochemistry and just a few more awards throughout his career including a Nobel. Furthermore I really don't think that ad-hominems are appropriate on our level of discussion.
Not much more that I can do right now (click)
That's a very good point. Of course much more has to be done, but this is an area of active research. Don't forget the animation was just a short summary, you can search the literature to find out more....
See previous statement. If you paid attention, you'd know that the purpose of the RNA strands is to serve as enzymes as well. This was clearly mentioned in the animation.
Patience. Life in the lab is a very big task. This is merely the beginning.....
Now this final statement is a bit disappointing. It's like YECs wanting to see a crocoduck. Pay attention, spontaneous generation of complex life forms is NEVER going to happen. If this is the only evidence you'd ever accept, then you'd be chasing ghosts forever.
You must have realistic expectations.
And now, I hope your next post will be about Evo.....
Cheers.
I'm heartbroken!
Dearest Michael, no one is forcing you to do something against your will. This video is meant for everyone else just as much as it is meant for you.
Here's a tip: you can start watching and if you don't like what you see or you feel threatened - just stop and hide under the blanket. It's OK.
6days
New member
We could also post you tube videos of atheist to theist. That would be fun eh? Sort of like an old west gun fight but we use competing videos instead of bullets. Less mess that way.
6days
New member
I think you get offended a bit too easily. The word evolutionist is an accurate word and distinguishes evolutionists from creationists. (Not all astronomers or astrophysicists are evolutionists.)
True...
They are some of the most highly recognized scientists in the field.
Uh... not exactly true.
I referred to them as "stellar evolutionists". They all believe that the stars and universe evolved, without supernatural cause.
Haha... (Yes that's funny)
These scientists often ridicule each others beliefs.
But mainly HAHA at your statements because, most of the statements of ridicule were from the BBC.
For example... And note one of the concluding statements of the show referring to "half baked musings"
BBC "For Prof. Linde, the big bang wasn’t really a starting point at all; he thinks that it was simply the end of something else. The universe appeared out of what he calls eternal inflation. Out universe is not the only one. There are others, all co-existing. He has counted them. There are ten to the power 10 to the power 10 to the power 7. His ideas of a multi-verse, as odd as they seem, are now within the scientific mainstream. For many cosmologists eternal inflation is in itself a reasonable explanation of what existed before our universe. For others it’s utter nonsense.”
Sad, these brilliant scientists really are such fools..... willing to accept anything other than..."In the beginning, God created..."
BBC (Re Dr. Singh) "No big bang at all; just the big bounce, again and again and again."
BBC "For Prof. Kaku, the laws of physics did not arrive with the big bang. The appearance of matter did not start with the clock of time. His interpretation of nothing tells us there was, in short, a ‘before’."
BBC “Smolin’s natural selection idea proposes that for a universe to prosper it must reproduce and for that to happen it must contain black holes that, according to Smolin, spawn offspring universes.”
BBC (Re. Dr. Turok) "For many cosmologists this is mathematical sleight of hand.”
BBC (Re. Dr. Penrose) "Because of this a nearly infinitely large universe could just as well be the infinitely small starting point for the next one. A simplistic system with a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. Quite a bold thrust for a man who was until five years ago a pre-big-bang denier.”
"BBC analysis...They would be easier to dismiss as the half-baked musings of the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that some of the very people who constructed the everything-from-nothing big bang model are themselves starting to dismantle it.
6 Days always speaks the truth
What's stopping you?
BTW, the video in question is more than a deconversion story, that's why I recommended it. It covers many philosophical, spiritual and factual topics.
If you want to take sides on what is true, it is best if you do more than just cast your vote. Specific evidence is always nice.
Dear Davis,
6days is laughing because it's funny. Not because he doesn't have a better response. He's answered you tons of times without laughter, so I don't know what you are trying to say. Sounds like you are the one with not much to say. People can tell what's going on.
Michael
- Status