Evolution

[Morphy]

Originally posted by brother Willi

because i know God is.
i serve God

I'm sorry to say that but evidence in favor of evolution is stronger...

Originally posted by brother Willi
YEP, thats how it works.
it leaves everything up to you.

almost like it was planned.

You know, if you need to prove something you just don't have to always show material evidence. Sometimes logic is enough. For example if we agree that 2+2=4 and 4+2=6 then we don't need to check if 2+2+2=6. We can just figure it out.

By analogy: if we know that:

1. genes can change over time
2. changes can be passed to posterity and
3. enviroment favours some specific features

then we can figure out that life evolves... It is pretty clear and consistent. And what we actually can see perfectly corroborates that theory - and one of the best examples is growing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It has nothing to do with god! If you think it is otherwise - show me better explanation...

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by aharvey

Sorry guys, I've been pretty sick lately. Here's a quick catchup.

Morphy,

First off, I am an evolutionary biologist by trade. I came across this forum several months ago while trying to understand the true nature of the problem that Creationists have with evolutionary theory. Please do not mistake my ability, such as it is, to describe these problems as meaning that I share them!

Cool. I haven't started this topic to mock or deride you. I am convinced that there is no better explanation for some phenomenons than evolution. And I have heard many times pastor Bob Enyart laughing at evolutionists, mocking them and making silly jokes. Therefore I wanted to know if any Creationist can offer any consistent, comprehensive and logical explanation of, for example, growing bacterial resistance to antibiotics other than evolution. And I must say nobody has presented anything worth consideration.

So far I am more convinced theory of evolution is true than I was when I posted my first message!

I don't know - maybe pastor Bob Enyart has any good theory, better than theory of evolution...

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by niceval4u

I believe that the earth is no more than 6.000 years old.

And I believe trolls exist...

I think we should use arguments, and somebody's belief in something is of no use unless supported by facts...

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by niceval4u

Maybe bacteria was the wrong word to use.

Yes, it was...

Originally posted by niceval4u
I meant that death and corruption was the result of man's sin.

So before man's sin there was no death, right? Well, how about tigers - did they not exist before man's sin or did they feed with plants, grass, air, water or sand and it was man's sin which turned then into predators?

Originally posted by niceval4u
The reason that we don't find dinosor bones is because they were killed of in the Noahic flood.

Well, so how come we can find bones of organisms which were old enough to exist before supposed Noahic flood? Is water somehow especially toxic to dinosaurs' bones???

I think much better explanation is all dinosaurs died no later than 60-70 millions years ago. Therefore all bones which were not fossilized (ie. turned into stone) were digested by bacteria. That is why you cannot see any dinosaurs' bones. And pay attention that there are no known remnants of dinos' soft tissues because they were eaten by bacteria before they could be fossilized.

And - finally - how come we have found some extinct species frozen in Siberia (like mammoth), but we have never found any remnants of frozen dinosaurs? Simply because mammoths may have lived 20.000 years ago. And dinosaurs were all dead by that time.

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by aharvey

Since all life as we know it would be impossible without bacteria, I would agree that bacteria would be a poor example of the death and corruption brought on by man's sin. On the other hand, some bacteria do indeed cause death and maybe corruption (not a scientific term, so I'm not sure what you specifically mean by it). An evolutionary biologist can explain this; what's the YEC interpretation?

That's why I put evolution before creationism. Because it simply explains many things... Science is much easier then, and - what is much more important scientifically - you can PREDICT future...

Originally posted by aharvey
So what is the reason we do find dinosaur bones?

No. We don't. We find only stones which were once bones. No bone is able to withstand millions of years. It just impossible. Only rock can do it (but not always - see Colorado Canyon for example). And we find bones which are 10.000, 15.000 and 20.000 old. Bone can do it.

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by aharvey

It's a work in progress. My first response to Morphy gives you some of what I've found. Reviewing the history of the dispute has been most enlightening. I think it's no accident that most of the current YEC arguments involve things like abiogenesis, information theory, the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics. All of these are irrelevant or at best peripheral to evolutionary theory per se, and all are therefore likely to be outside the areas of expertise of practicing biologists.

Of course, there is also the irreducible complexity class of arguments, which includes the "wow! look how complex cells/genes are!" This entire class of arguments is based on some faulty premises, and, unexpectedly, a healthy dose of appeal to emotion.

In general I have not had good luck getting positive evidence for a young earth creationist view of the world, only arguments against evolution. I have also had little success getting YECs to even provide a logical YEC-based explanation for the few interesting situations I've presented. Brother Willi's post is typical: "it is the way it was meant to be." This may be true, but it's not very useful.

I have also learned that my colleagues are pretty uninformed about the YEC world, even those that work here in the Bible Belt. They tend to be harshly dismissive, but have often never tried to have a reasonable discussion with Creationists. Although I don't get the impression that I've reached many minds here, I do think my level of understanding is far greater than it was last summer.

By the way, it's worth repeating that when I talk about "reaching minds," I don't mean "convert to heathen evolutionism." I take my TOL signature very seriously. If I have a goal besides expanding my own knowledge base, it's that I want people to think more deeply about what they say, what they believe. My goal is not to convert anyone to an Old-earth, evolution-based worldview. My goal is to be able to intelligently discuss, compare, and contrast the assumptions, models, predictions, evidence, and implications of these different world views.

Well said Ahavrey!

 

[Stratnerd]

Morph,

The permineralization process is highly variable and entirely dependent on the environment. There are permineralized bones found of modern organisms (I've found lots of 'em) and there are cases where the permineralization process is incomplete in dinosaur bones despite being > 65 million years old. So it can't be used like radiometric dating.

Let me add another difference between science and creationism: the explanations. Explanations in science are supposed to account for more phenomena and make more things "fit". Creationist explanations do the opposite, the account for minor things (dinosaurs died during the flood) but create more havoc with other phenomena.

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

To me the primary difference between creationists and scientists is epistemology. Creationists believe that revelation via diety to man is a superior episteme. That is, what is written in the people is absolute Truth. All you need to do is visit AIG or CRC and read their statement of faith to see this. Science, on the other hand, believes that inference, though fallible, is a superior episteme. Revelation doesn't play any role since science seeks to be objective in data gathering and interpretation.

Creationists beef with evolution has nothing do with evidence for creation. In fact, evidence is irrelevent to the creationists position since revelation is their source not inference. This is why creationists create and seek conflicts with evolution like information theory and why they have a difficult time creating a comprehensive theory. The other difficultly is that any creationist theory is likely to conflict with the world. Why? Because the world, via inference, looks to be several billion years old and whose inhabitatants appear to have evolved from each other.

Short but concrete.

My point is: creationists should accept evolution as consistent theory. Otherwise they discourage many people from Christianity. If you consider evolution to be a false theory I hope you have something better to offer instead. Otherwise it is you who will be considered as morons. And I don't want people to think Christians are morons... Every creationist should put it in mind. In medieval ages Catholic church persecuted those who fought the Earth was a globe. Fortunately popes have admitted they were wrong. Hadn't they done it Catholic church would be extinct by now.

Creationists: don't discourage people from bible by ordering them to believe in untenable theories...

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by brother Willi



life aint that old

Still no answer from you, thanks anyway.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Morphy

No. We don't. We find only stones which were once bones. No bone is able to withstand millions of years. It just impossible. Only rock can do it (but not always - see Colorado Canyon for example). And we find bones which are 10.000, 15.000 and 20.000 old. Bone can do it.

Well, yeah, okay. Is that what he meant? Either way, it was a fairly illogical statement; if he was asking about actual dinosaur bones, not fossils of bones, then I still don't have a clue why the Flood was relevant, especially as most YECs will argue that there were dinosaurs on the Ark!

 

[Morphy]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Morph,

The permineralization process is highly variable and entirely dependent on the environment. There are permineralized bones found of modern organisms (I've found lots of 'em) and there are cases where the permineralization process is incomplete in dinosaur bones despite being > 65 million years old. So it can't be used like radiometric dating.

Have you ever found any fossilized human bone?

Let me give you a piece of advice: if you find a dinosaur's bone which is not completely fossilized sell it to genecists. They will extract DNA and recreate dinosaurs. You will be famous and rich!

Originally posted by Stratnerd
Let me add another difference between science and creationism: the explanations. Explanations in science are supposed to account for more phenomena and make more things "fit". Creationist explanations do the opposite, the account for minor things (dinosaurs died during the flood) but create more havoc with other phenomena.

That's right. Science do not seek god, science is trying to describe the world as we see it. Do you not why there is no god mentioned in any mathematic book? Because god is not needed in algebra, geometry, trigonometry and so on. Biology is similar - we don't need any god to explain anatomy, physiology, biochemistry etc. And it is much useful to explain changes in ecology, zoology, botany, mycology, virusology, bacteriology with theory of evolution than with bible. Knowing theory of evolution I can expect bacteria to get more and more resistant to antibiotics. But as creationist I cannot predict anything like that...

 

[Stratnerd]

> Have you ever found any fossilized human bone?

There's both out there!

>> Let me give you a piece of advice: if you find a dinosaur's bone which is not completely fossilized sell it to genecists. They will extract DNA and recreate dinosaurs. You will be famous and rich! <<

because there's bone doesn't means there's DNA... at least nothing we could possibly recover and be useful. Why are you equating the two?

Read this please: http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/17-349-359.html

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey



By the way, it's worth repeating that when I talk about "reaching minds," I don't mean "convert to heathen evolutionism." I take my TOL signature very seriously. If I have a goal besides expanding my own knowledge base, it's that I want people to think more deeply about what they say, what they believe. My goal is not to convert anyone to an Old-earth, evolution-based worldview. My goal is to be able to intelligently discuss, compare, and contrast the assumptions, models, predictions, evidence, and implications of these different world views.

:thumb:

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Morphy

I'm sorry to say that but evidence in favor of evolution is stronger...

to you that may seem true.

You know, if you need to prove something you just don't have to always show material evidence. Sometimes logic is enough. For example if we agree that 2+2=4 and 4+2=6 then we don't need to check if 2+2+2=6. We can just figure it out.

By analogy: if we know that:

1. genes can change over time
2. changes can be passed to posterity and
3. enviroment favours some specific features

then we can figure out that life evolves... It is pretty clear and consistent. And what we actually can see perfectly corroborates that theory - and one of the best examples is growing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It has nothing to do with god! If you think it is otherwise - show me better explanation...

what if 2 is rounded of ?

2.4+2.4+2.4=

what you say is it cant evolve fast enough for a flood, yet it changed ove millions of years.

leaching ever effect dating?

ocean animals C-14 good?

how old is the dirt we burried our cat in?

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Jukia

Still no answer from you, thanks anyway.

what year is the Jewish calender in?

do we know how long the time in the Garden of Eden was?

are they combined?

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by brother Willi

what year is the Jewish calender in?

do we know how long the time in the Garden of Eden was?

are they combined?

I have no clue. Do you??

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Jukia

I have no clue. Do you??

http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/m_calint.htm

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sjewcale.htm

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by brother Willi

http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/m_calint.htm

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sjewcale.htm

I dont care re the Jewish calendar. You seemed to be saying that the Bible could tell you hold old the earth is. If that is your position then just tell me what it says and how you came to that conclusion. I have neither the time nor the desire to figure it out based on the Jewish calendar or anything else. If you have a rationale response please provide it. Thanks

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Jukia

I dont care re the Jewish calendar. You seemed to be saying that the Bible could tell you hold old the earth is. If that is your position then just tell me what it says and how you came to that conclusion. I have neither the time nor the desire to figure it out based on the Jewish calendar or anything else. If you have a rationale response please provide it. Thanks

In the Jewish calendar, today is the 6th day of the month of Adar--and in this year, that is the "first Adar" or "Adar Aleph", because this is a leap year. The month is followed by "Adar Beth" or "Ve-Adar" ("and-Adar"), the second Adar, an extra month added now and then.
This happens to be year number 5760,


The Jewish calendar is much more accurate than the old-style calendar used when Washington was born. Still, in the 3500 years or so since the exodus from Egypt, it has slipped by about two weeks. According to the Bible, the exodus took place at the spring equinox, around March 21, and now Passover is about 2 weeks later. However, as long as one uses a calendar that tries to keep up with both the Sun and the Moon, there is nothing one can do about it--except maybe, wait a few thousand years more and then omit an entire leap month.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sjewcale.htm

 

[brother Willi]

This happens to be year number 5760,