Science for a pre-sin world

6days

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent example of the Biblical creation model. The genetic information in finches allowed them to adapt and survive to a changing environment.
Greg Jennings said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
Greg Jennings said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.*
Greg Jennings said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Greg Jennings said:
Me and the whole scientific community I guess. Sounds likely
Click to expand...

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:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jose Fly said:
Why do you keep calling it "the Biblical creation model", when it's just a belief that hasn't contributed anything to science?
Click to expand...




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).
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jose Fly said:
Why? They're beliefs, not science.
Click to expand...



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

Jose Fly

New member
Interplanner said:
But the earth is actually here. The earth is not a "belief"; it was actually produced.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jose Fly said:
?????????? 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.
Click to expand...

'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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top