Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox · Rules -  


> Affiliates [ View All | Link-us ]
Mask of Destiny 
 

Pages: (9) 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Evolution vs. Creationism
fishers64
 Posted: May 25 2015, 06:49 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Steph @ May 25 2015, 03:36 PM)
lmao jess why did you make a topic encouraging debate over literal fact


It's a conspiracy to get me to make a fool of myself. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Except I have so many screws loose that I think it's fun.
PM
^
fishers64
 Posted: May 26 2015, 04:57 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Cow Jazz @ May 25 2015, 12:18 PM)

Except a flood wouldn't leave neat striations; we'd find dinosaurs and mammoths side-by-side, not separated by large quantities of rock. A single fossilizing flood is inconsistent with the ways fossils are actually organized in the rock.

This is going to be a grievous error, but this is where I got this idea, so fair credit must be given where credit is due:

QUOTE (bonesiii)
-Order of fossils -- At one time I considered this the sole remaining apparent evidence for evolution over the Bible; the idea that the pattern of how the fossils are arranged vertically wouldn't make sense if it all happened at once in a Flood. At first glance, you'd think a Flood would result in all types of creatures being randomly mixed. However, when you think it through, and look at the actual pattern of the order, it soon becomes clear that the order is exactly what we would expect from the Flood.

Seagoing, especially bottom-dwelling, creatures are fossilized first. Evolution matches this, but need it? Evolution is the idea that life evolved rather than special creation. There is no reason evolution absolutely has to begin with ocean bottom-dwelling creatures, especially since no known abiogenesis (origin of first life) method is known at all, so how could we be sure deep sea life was needed? But with the Flood, especially the runaway subduction model, deep sea life would have to be buried first.

Next we have other sea life, as would be expected, and then we see what appear to be coastal environments. As the Flood raged across the land, this is again exactly what would happen. We see an "explosion" of varieties of land and sea life, especially plants.

Further up we tend to have animals that would be more able to flee floodwaters for a time. Many of these are large creatures, including apparent herbivores, yet they are fossilized without much plants. What would they eat? This is all very strange if evolution is true, but makes perfect sense with the Flood. Plants obviously cannot swim upward or climb mountains, etc. Flying creatures are included around here, and this could be when they ran out of energy to continue fleeing, etc.

So in short, the biblical explanation for the vertical arrangement of fossils is that they  were more or less buried where they lived, with some other factors like how likely they would be to flee death and burial and for how long, etc. What I thought was the only good argument left against the Bible turns out to be one of the strongest for it!


From here: http://bonesiiitruthseeker.webs.com/originsessay.htm

Now, this guy is a nut, and even I have an objection - the Biblical flood happened pretty suddenly, so this effect would probably be subdued. However, the Bible does say 40 days and 40 nights, which could be possibly enough time for other animals to flee.

In addition (I think this is the batter argument BTW, just saying), dinosaurs would probably live in humid, low altitude climates closer to the ground, whereas mammoths would live in higher altitudes on mountains. The idea that they would be fossilized together is somewhat nutty anyway with a sudden global flood. (or even without it)

On the other hand, the Ice Age supposedly shoved animals closer to the equator, which could make mammoths and dino fossilization together more likely.

QUOTE
QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 25 2015, 02:02 PM)
Mostly because I don't buy that reptile scales turned into feathers. There's so much overwhelming evidence against that it's just ridiculous. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Really? I'm interested in seeing this evidence. Is this actual, scientific evidence, or just a "feeling"?

(By the way, did you know that crocodiles have a gene related to feather production in their genome? Yet they're scaly. If feathers could not develop from scales, how'd that get there?)


It's this: http://www.fernbank.edu/Birding/birdID/Feathers/feather1.jpg

As you can see, feathers are actually woven-together hollow tubes. They're not related to flat reptile scales in any way whatsoever.

And according to this article, I have the genetic material to make feathers too, so that crocodile thing is hardly unique. I quote:

QUOTE (The National Geographic)
It may seem strange to consider the fact that you, as a mammal, have all the known genes required to pattern a feather, and yet you do not look like Big Bird. The reason for this discrepancy is that genes can do different jobs. Depending on where and when they make their proteins, they can build different kinds of anatomy.


Somehow consistent genomes don't surprise me - DNA is made of four molecules, and those molecules only have so many patterns. I randomly have the same genes as a bird in some places. I'm so surprised.

QUOTE
QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 25 2015, 02:02 PM)
I'm not sure that the Creationist timeline included the Ice Age. A lot of what I've seen seems to suggest that the flood went in place of the Ice Age.

Which is stupid, because the Ice Age obviously happened. I can tell you for a fact that denying that Ice Age happened is extremely unscientific and just plain wrong.

I'm going to take that back, because even the hacks at AiG support an ice Age lol. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

QUOTE
But I thought fossils were supposed to show a pre-flood world?

Yes. They would. It's possible that additional fossilizing happened after the flood, but most of it probably happened during the flood.

QUOTE
And I'm not just talking plants. I'm talking sheer population sizes here. The world is big, but it's definitely not big enough to support survivable populations of the number of species seen in the fossil record. There simply isn't enough room. You can't cram hundreds of millions of years of life in the same place.

There can't be hundreds of millions of years of life down there anyway. Most of the life on Earth that dies is eaten by worms and doesn't fossilize. So far I haven't seen any scientific evidence against that.

And most of the projected population size isn't based on the number of fossils down there anyway. Most scientists start out with our current fossil population and presume that there had to be a lot more because of what I just said about fossilization conditions. Whereas if you have a global flood, 98% of the population was killed and fossilized, leaving the actual population of these species to be a whole lot smaller.

QUOTE
QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 25 2015, 02:02 PM)
I'm going to throw this one right back at you, and ask why you have to cram things like the Ice Age and loooong human development into the picture.

Because the former definitely happened and the latter is supported by anthropological evidence.

Do you have anthropological evidence that shows an agricultural society developing halfway? Because that doesn't make much sense.
PM
^
fishers64
 Posted: May 26 2015, 05:18 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Cow Jazz @ May 25 2015, 12:55 PM)
It's not because it's being silenced. It's because it's not science. It's the same reason you don't see geocentrism presented as a reasonable alternative to heliocentrism; it's not.

Really, the existence of God, the global flood, and other related things has not been debunked. Nobody believes in a flat earth or geocentrism anymore, but plenty of people believe in creationism.

Really, this controversy has nothing to do with science. Science just tells us the facts. It's how people interpret the facts that's a problem, since when it comes to these issues, nobody gives you the straight story. All the sources I've seen interpret it in one direction or another.

QUOTE
Evolution is taught as the best possible theory as to how populations of organisms change over time because it is. It's not a conspiracy against biblical creationism, it's actually being scientific.

The problem becomes is when people assume that too much change has happened, just because we've now figured out that change is possible. This gives the foot in the door to the taste that a whole lot is a result of biological change as opposed to the unlikable alternatives like creationism, when in reality mutations and biological change don't really affect that much.

I'm not going to argue that organisms don't change over time, or that evolution is not a valid theory to explain that. But a theory that organisms change over time (in micronic bits, very slowly) does not explain:

-The fossil record
-Human history
-The universe's origin
-The age of the Earth
-Etc.

(Darwin realized this - he was a creationist. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif)

QUOTE
Again, you're assuming that physical laws cannot exist without a creator. Which, since you weren't able to argue against my previous point, isn't actually proven. Therefore, whether or not the universe is completely random is irrelevant to whether or not it requires a creator..

But where else can they come from? Randomness? Holes in the wall? Laws come from minds - that's why humans have organized government and trees don't.

For something to apply consistently, and to remain the same, as opposed to always randomly changing out of control, it has to be guided by a mind. Anything else is just insane.

But if they don't come from God, where would they come from?
PM
^
Serein
 Posted: May 26 2015, 05:40 PM
Quote Post


dirty catgirl
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 371
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 14









QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 26 2015, 05:18 PM)
(Darwin realized this - he was a creationist. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif)


I've been trying to stay out of this but. um. source? I know he went along with the biblical view of creation during his early life, but, uh, yeah, pretty sure he let go of that eventually.

--------------------
[ signature is a work-in-progress ]
PMUsers Website
^
Steph
 Posted: May 26 2015, 05:59 PM
Quote Post


something you think describes me
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 105
Member No.: 30
Joined: 25-May 15









QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 26 2015, 05:18 PM)
But where else can they come from? Randomness? Holes in the wall? Laws come from minds - that's why humans have organized government and trees don't.

People conflating "physical laws" and "legal laws" in this, the year 2k15

--------------------
I wasn't born so much as I fell out
PMUsers Website
^
fishers64
 Posted: May 26 2015, 06:27 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Letagi @ May 25 2015, 02:04 PM)
Frankly, fishers, I'm astounded that you would cite a website like Answers in Genesis as a reliable source.

It's a reliable source for what creationists believe, Letagi. I'm trying to make sure I consider both sides of the debate when warranted.

QUOTE
Of the four links provided a few posts ago, the first is quite good and refutes false creationist claims nicely. This second is literally laughable. The second sentence - "Thus it appears that God probably created those elements when He made the original earth" - completely discredits the rest of the piece all on its own. We know how heavier elements were and continue to be produced, and it has nothing to do with any gods - they're made via thermonuclear fusion inside the cores of the more massive stars from hydrogen and helium. Hordes of computer simulations of stellar core conditions support this, as well as spectroanalysis of stars and supernova remnants. After a star dies, its leftover gas and dust eventually coalesces due to its own gravity into a new star system, complete with the heavier elements forged inside the first generation star.

Lol that's AiG's religious bias for you. They probably would tell you that God created the mechanism in the stars that makes those heavy metals.

However, heavy metals in the middle of stars does not necessarily mean they are on the earth, and presuming that a star died for our new one to get the heavy metals on Earth is presuming an age of the universe a little too old for AiG.

QUOTE
More to the point of the argument on the reliability of radiometric dating, however, the writer goes on to explain the process of carbon dating, which he does reasonably well. But his conclusion is utterly flawed, which is that since the half-life of carbon is only 5730 years, anything dated with carbon dating will yield an age of that magnitude. This is false. Imagine we have a 100 kg sample of carbon. After one half-life, the sample will be 50 kg carbon and 50 kg nitrogen. After another half-life, the sample will be 25 kg carbon and 75 kg nitrogen. After a third the sample will only be 12.5 kg carbon. Already, we're at three half-lives - three times the age of Earth that the writer proposes - and we still have plenty of carbon to use up. It's true that carbon dating is inaccurate for objects that are millions of years old or older due to the exponentially smaller carbon content - and because nitrogen doesn't always hang around long (radiometric dating that involves much longer half-lives is used) -  but its short half-life is in no way evidence for a young Earth.

I think he was trying to say that there is more carbon-14 in fossils than its half-life, not that carbon-14 couldn't be used to date things older than its half life. I'll agree that the latter statement is bogus, though.

QUOTE

Assumption 1: The original number of unstable (parent) atoms can be known based on parent/daughter element proportions.

It can be because we understand radioactive decay. It's not an assumption; it's a calculation based on known constant rates of decay.

But what we're looking at is the result atoms. How do we know that those atoms came from carbon-14 radioactive decay, for sure?

QUOTE
Assumption 2: The rate of decay has always been constant, "ignoring the impact of Creation or changes during Noah's flood."

Preposterous. The laws of physics are constant and unchanging by their very definition; if they weren't, they wouldn't be laws. Furthermore, since as we look out into space we also look backwards in time, had the laws of physics been different at any time in history, we would see unexplainable phenomena in outer space. And to say that a flood on Earth could have changed the laws of physics is ridiculous beyond description. The University of Sydney should revoke this guy's PhD. I'm shocked and offended that they gave him one in the first place.

It wouldn't be changes in the laws of physics, it's a change on how they are applied to specific samples of rock. It's the forces of water taking carbon-14 atoms from one mud-ridden stretch of ocean bottom and putting them somewhere else.

QUOTE
Assumption 3: The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay.

We can be sure that daughter atoms came from parent atoms and not from other geologic processes because we understand geology. For instance, we wouldn't use carbon dating to date a sample where nitrogen has been introduced into the environment via a process other than beta decay. But if the nitrogen didn't come from somewhere else, then it must have come from the parent element. Some of the nitrogen could have escaped, of course; this impacts the accuracy, but asymmetrically. Thus, radiometric dating provides a minimum age for a sample.

I don't understand this defense. But the nitrogen could have come from somewhere else. That's what confuses me. How are we absolutely sure that this concentration of daughter atoms points directly to this concentration of carbon-14 in the original?

Realistically, it would seem that the flood, or even just normal geologic processes, would move carbon-14 or nitrogen around, and that the daughter atoms would come about via other processes. It's like pointing to an entire pool of carbon and saying "this entire thing was once radioactive" when science tells us that not all carbon is or was.

QUOTE
That wish is problematic. There can't be a better creationist website with better science because the science supporting creationism doesn't exist. It's like wishing there was better science to argue in favour of a flat Earth (which some people still believe based on the same level of science as others base their belief in creationism on).

I have met very very few people who believe in a flat earth. There's at least 2 million people who believe in creationism in North America alone. Irrespective of whether this is right or wrong, comparing it to that insane belief is an over exaggeration.

QUOTE
Education institutions teach evolution as a fact in the same way that they teach that Earth is spherical as a fact. There is overwhelming evidence to support it, and no evidence to the contrary. Would you accuse modern education of silencing the Flat Earth Society?

Again, there is evidence, and it hasn't been debunked. This whole debate is an open loop, in the fact that there is a bunch of unknowns that people can fill with their own interpretations - I can't time travel to see the flood happen or creation happen. It's all about the past, and how it affects the present. When I time travel back 2 million years and see that the earth exists and no God, then yeah. Until then, creationism has the most evidence.

By contrast, the flat earth thing is debunkable in the present. If the math and the photographs from space aren't proof enough, all I have to do is to ride a plane or a boat in a circle around the world (cue Magellan) to prove it false. It would be the proper duty of the educational system to inform students of these facts, if only to conserve the wasted gasoline from Earth-circling plane flights.

QUOTE
QUOTE
The real difference isn't complexity, because complexity can happen randomly, and randomness is actually more complex than intelligence. The difference is ORDER, a reduction in complexity. This universe has laws and rules we can understand, as opposed to the endlessly variable complexity of randomness which is beyond our comprehension.

If order is the reduction of complexity, and if a high degree of order necessarily had a creator, then that creator must have likewise had a high degree of order. That poses a problem: where did that order come from? The argument from irreducible complexity is inherently flawed.

What you're saying is that the low-entropy state of the early universe must necessarily have been carefully arranged by an intelligence. But that intelligence must necessarily have possessed an even lower entropy. It's an age-old problem: if God created the universe, who created God?

-L

L, you're forgetting one important fact - the creator of the universe must have zero entropy. But you've already told me that entropy is why time moves in one direction.

Therefore, if this being has no entropy, he is outside time. He is a timeless being. Time does not exist for him - he would be able to move though time as we move through space. And if he is outside time, he would not - and in fact, could not - have an origin point.

Therefore the order inside of his mind is eternal - it has no beginning, it has no end, and it does not reduce.

However, the observable universe does have entropy. Therefore it does have a beginning, end, and reduce in usable energy with time, and has natural laws consistent with that. It's these two realities side by side that make up the truth.
PM
^
fishers64
 Posted: May 26 2015, 06:35 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Hellscythe @ May 26 2015, 02:40 PM)
QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 26 2015, 05:18 PM)
(Darwin realized this - he was a creationist. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif)


I've been trying to stay out of this but. um. source? I know he went along with the biblical view of creation during his early life, but, uh, yeah, pretty sure he let go of that eventually.


It's actually a joke on what creationists think about Darwin, but FTR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_vie...s_loss_of_faith

It's not at all clear, but it's possible he was never that devout to begin with. Church of England and all of that.


PM
^
Steph
 Posted: May 26 2015, 06:45 PM
Quote Post


something you think describes me
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 105
Member No.: 30
Joined: 25-May 15









only semi-related, but why do people think a creator deity would be male, anyway

--------------------
I wasn't born so much as I fell out
PMUsers Website
^
RKO Mom
 Posted: May 26 2015, 06:54 PM
Quote Post


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 24
Joined: 25-May 15









user posted image

Randy Orton is Evolution. John Cena is the Scientific Method. Poor Cody Rhodes is Creationism.
PM
^
Steph
 Posted: May 26 2015, 06:56 PM
Quote Post


something you think describes me
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 105
Member No.: 30
Joined: 25-May 15









/thread

--------------------
I wasn't born so much as I fell out
PMUsers Website
^
fishers64
 Posted: May 26 2015, 07:26 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Steph @ May 26 2015, 03:45 PM)
only semi-related, but  why do people think a creator deity would be male, anyway

Uh, the guy said he was male. After all, he can choose his own gender identity just like everyone else. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif
PM
^
Steph
 Posted: May 26 2015, 07:40 PM
Quote Post


something you think describes me
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 105
Member No.: 30
Joined: 25-May 15









IIRC Jewish tradition actually portrayed the Judeo-Christian deity (YHWH) as more genderless and formless and impossible to depict, and that portraying it as "male" has been a more....broad translation. Though regardless, I don't recall YHWH ever explicitly declaring its gender within any canonized scripture. The closest I've seen in any christian bible is reference to them as "the father," though that sees to be more of a preferential translation than anything actually in accordance with the original Jewish tradition.

EDIT: just checked with my Jewish partner and she confirmed that, even though masculine pronouns are used in most scriptural texts, the Judeo-Christian god is considered genderless.

--------------------
I wasn't born so much as I fell out
PMUsers Website
^
RKO Mom
 Posted: May 26 2015, 07:52 PM
Quote Post


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 24
Joined: 25-May 15









QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 26 2015, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (Steph @ May 26 2015, 03:45 PM)
only semi-related, but  why do people think a creator deity would be male, anyway

Uh, the guy said he was male. After all, he can choose his own gender identity just like everyone else. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Backing Steph up here to say that as someone who has translated some of the New Testament from the original greek, she's right. While there is a long standing tradition of using the male pronouns/endings for God, there's no real precedent of God being assigned a gender. There are plenty of male allegories using him, but there are also a handful of female ones as well. Here's a quick rundown of them.

I'm actually really tempted to see what word is used when an angel takes the form of a human. Do they use the traditional 'man' words like andros or the word for human which I can't exactly recall off the top of my head man am I bad at languages.
PM
^
fishers64
 Posted: May 26 2015, 07:59 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (RKO Mom @ May 26 2015, 04:52 PM)
QUOTE (fishers64 @ May 26 2015, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (Steph @ May 26 2015, 03:45 PM)
only semi-related, but  why do people think a creator deity would be male, anyway

Uh, the guy said he was male. After all, he can choose his own gender identity just like everyone else. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Backing Steph up here to say that as someone who has translated some of the New Testament from the original greek, she's right. While there is a long standing tradition of using the male pronouns/endings for God, there's no real precedent of God being assigned a gender. There are plenty of male allegories using him, but there are also a handful of female ones as well. Here's a quick rundown of them.

I'm actually really tempted to see what word is used when an angel takes the form of a human. Do they use the traditional 'man' words like andros or the word for human which I can't exactly recall off the top of my head man am I bad at languages.

Jesus said he was the "Son of Man". Plus Jesus wasn't a girl.

God himself is genderless, yes, but he identified as male to make it easier for us humans to understand.
PM
^
RKO Mom
 Posted: May 26 2015, 08:04 PM
Quote Post


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Member No.: 24
Joined: 25-May 15









My response to the first is son do you even know how to gender and sex.

The second is silly because you basically say "God himself is genderless." You're acknowledging that he doesn't have a gender, but we use gender terms for convenience. He's never specifically identified one way or the other, and there have been both male and female allegories concerning him.
PM
^
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic OptionsPages: (9) 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll


 


 

 
 

 duoTEK skinned by Nephos of the ZBSZ. Converted to Jcink by Meraceire