A literal 6 24-hr days?

[Helen]

Hi again,

Barry recalled responding to a similar question in an email and I have not yet put it up on his website, so here are two paragraphs from his email to someone else asking similar questions. I hope they help:

As far as the abundance of elements is concerned, there are several anomalies existing with current BB theory. Gamow originally proposed the building up of all elements in his BB scenario. However a blockage was found in that process which was difficult to overcome. As a result, Hoyle, Burbidge, and Fowler examined the possibility of elements being built up within stars, which later exploded and spread them out among the intergalactic clouds. This proposal is now generally accepted. However, it leads to a number of problems, such as the anomalous abundance of iron in the regions around quasars. There are other problems, such as anomalous groups of stars near the center of our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy which have high metal abundances. Because of the current approach using the production of these elements in the first generation of stars, this process obviously takes time. As a consequence, these anomalous stars can only be accounted for by collisions or cannibalization of smaller star systems by larger galaxies. There is another possible answer, however, which creationists need to consider. It has been shown that in a scenario with small black holes, such as Planck particles, the addition of a proton to the system or to a system with a negatively-charged black hole, the build-up of elements becomes possible. The blockage that element formation in stars was designed to overcome is eliminated, because neutrons can also be involved, as can alpha particles. As a consequence, is it possible to build up other elements than hydrogen and helium in the early phases of the universe. This may happen in local concentrations where negative black holes formed by the agglomeration of Planck Particles exist. Stars that form in those areas would then have apparently anomalous metal abundances. Importantly, in this scenario, if Population II stars were formed on Day 1 of Creation Week, as suggested by Job 38, and Population I stars were formed half-way through day 4, as listed in Genesis 1:14, we have a good reason why the Population I stars contain more metals than the Population II stars, as this process from the agglomeration of black holes would have had time to act.

Regarding distance and age of galaxies: There is no argument that distance indicates age. This should be stated first. It was this very fact that the further out we looked, the more different the universe appeared, that caused the downfall of the Steady State model. Specifically, it was the discovery of quasars that produced this result. Importantly, quasars become brighter and more numerous the further out we look. At a redshift of around 1.7, their numbers and luminosity appear to plateau. Closer in from 1.7, their numbers and intensity decline. Furthermore, a redshift of 1.7 is also an important marker for the formation of stars. We notice starburst galaxies of increasing activity as we go back to a redshift of 1.7. At that point, star formation activity appears to reach a maximum where young, hot blue stars of Population I are being formed (therefore emitting higher amounts of UV radiation). At a redshift of 1.7, the redshift/distance relationship also undergoes a major change. The curve steepens up considerably as we go back from that point. This has caused current BB thinking to introduce some extra terms into their equations which would indicate that the rate of expansion of the cosmos has speeded up as we come forward in time from that point. On the lightspeed scenario, a redshift of 1.7 effectively marks the close of Creation Week, and so all of these above effects would be expected to taper off after that time.

As far as the black hole in the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, we see it as it is NOW. When we look out in space, we can see the way things WERE. This is pretty different! There is no reason to assume our black hole was any different from what we are seeing 'out there.'

from Barry: Initially, the black holes were so energetic that the quasars associated with them were even more brilliant than some of the most energtic quasars we see closer in. The figure that was used in the calculation for the energy of a quasar is for one of the quasars nearer to us than those on the frontiers of the cosmos. There, the quasars are over a hundred times more luminous than those closer in, and so this has to be factored into the calculation. The calculation itself is correct; it is just the wrong figure that is being used.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
You've been misinformed about engineers and biologists. Most of the time, they look it up in tables, but even aside from that, you're wrong. Evolutionary theory is used regularly by agronomists,(predicting the fitness of new varieties) drug and pesticide companies,{overcoming the evolution of chemical resistance) and doctors (designing protocols for minimizing the evolution of antibiotic resistance).

Among other things.

No Galatian, he’s absolutely right and you know it. Engineers rely upon the principles of physics in almost every standpoint of their work. Where do you think those tables come from, huh???

Evolutionary theory (Macro sense of course) is not used for anything. Bacteria and humans have immensely complex systems designed for adaption to changing enviroments. No new gene codes are added!!! This is not an example of macro-evolution by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course "proof" is never part of science, which is primarily inductive, and depends on evidence. However, there is a great mass of evidence from a large number of sciences, which is why scientists of all disciplines overwhelminingly accept evolutionary theory.

Ah, yea, because they are indoctrinated into the cult of methodological naturalism. I read science journals and books as a hobby from age 10 to age 30. I got saved at age 23. When I was 30 I found out about creation science. Only then was I told the whole story and taught to think critically about evolution. Imagine that, religion teaching critical thinking and scientists indoctrinating. This is the fact of 20th and 21st century education. The scientists are the ones who are indoctrinating whole generations of young people into a boring dogmatic, narrow-minded view of science fashioned after their own pagan imaginations.

After reading science journals for 20 years I never heard critical arguments against evolution, and boy there are many, and they encompass every field of science. It was clear to me then, as it is now, that most scientists follow a presumptive world view that creates bias in their thinking. 20 years of reading Scientific American and other journals only indoctrinated me into one view….evolution. Now I know that creation is not only a viable alternative, but the best explanation given the entire body of evidence. Just as the electron microscope has dispelled some of the mythological beliefs about how the microscopic world just fell together, more advanced research in other fields will eventually prove creation to be true (unless the Lord comes back first).

No, that's wrong, too. For example, it was predicted, on evolutionary theory, that bacteria would rapidly become resistant to penicillin. They did. Evolutionary theory predicted dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and reptiles with mammal characteristics, all of which were found after the prediction. You've been misled again.

Non-sequitor. Again, you show you lack of understanding of the issue at hand, bacterial resistance is not a prediction of evolution, but it is an evidence of special creation. Creation predicts that intelligently designed creatures will be able to adapt to a variety of conditions. The other examples you gave are on commonality. Commonality is also a prediction one would make from the creation perspective. A Honda Civic has things in common with a Honda Accord. Nothing amazing about this, they had a common designer. If your implication about feather and legs is an attempt to discuss intermediates, then let’s discuss that. The fossil record clearly shows there are no intermediates, unless you definition of intermediate is so loose as to render it ineffectual for evolutionary theory. The fact is that there are no missing links, the chain is non-existent.

Religion, depending on faith, has no need of science.

Interesting statement. Science also is dependent upon faith. It takes enormous faith to believe in evolution in light of the evidence. I believe the primary tenant of the faith of evolution is called “methodological naturalism”.

 

[The Galatian]

You've been misinformed about engineers and biologists. Most of the time, they look it up in tables, but even aside from that, you're wrong. Evolutionary theory is used regularly by agronomists,(predicting the fitness of new varieties) drug and pesticide companies,{overcoming the evolution of chemical resistance) and doctors (designing protocols for minimizing the evolution of antibiotic resistance).

Among other things.

No Galatian, he’s absolutely right and you know it. Engineers rely upon the principles of physics in almost every standpoint of their work. Where do you think those tables come from, huh???

Reading from tables is not "doing physics". That would by like saying your doctor is doing evolutionary science when he prescribes a schedule for you to take antibiotics. On second thought, you might have something there. Even if the engineer and doctor are not thinking about the science involved, they do depend on it.

Bacteria and humans have immensely complex systems designed for adaption to changing enviroments. No new gene codes are added!!!

You've been misled there. There are numerous observed examples of the evolution of new genes. Would you like to learn about some of them?

This is not an example of macro-evolution by any stretch of the imagination.

Technically, macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa (species, genera, etc.) This has been directly observed. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Barbarian observes:
Of course "proof" is never part of science, which is primarily inductive, and depends on evidence. However, there is a great mass of evidence from a large number of sciences, which is why scientists of all disciplines overwhelminingly accept evolutionary theory.

Ah, yea, because they are indoctrinated into the cult of methodological naturalism. I read science journals and books as a hobby from age 10 to age 30. I got saved at age 23. When I was 30 I found out about creation science.

Actually, if you really did that, you surely would have known about observed macroevolution. What scientific journals did you read?

Only then was I told the whole story and taught to think critically about evolution. Imagine that, religion teaching critical thinking and scientists indoctrinating.

Sounds to me like you've been very well indoctrinated. But I've yet to see a scientist who, when challenged on evolution or any other science, did not cite evidence, rather than faith.

This is the fact of 20th and 21st century education. The scientists are the ones who are indoctrinating whole generations of young people into a boring dogmatic, narrow-minded view of science fashioned after their own pagan imaginations.

You're wrong on that, too. Most of us are theists. And the biggist part of those are Christians.

After reading science journals for 20 years I never heard critical arguments against evolution, and boy there are many, and they encompass every field of science.

That's odd, too. I can think of many things in evoliutionary science that have been criticised in scientific journals. Some of them have led to changes in evolutionary theory. What journals were you reading?

It was clear to me then, as it is now, that most scientists follow a presumptive world view that creates bias in their thinking. 20 years of reading Scientific American and other journals only indoctrinated me into one view….evolution.

Ah, Scientific American is not a scientific journal. It's just a science magazine, albeit a pretty good one. But if you read it faithfully, you would have seen controversy about punctuated equillibrium, neutralist theories, "mitochondrial Eve", the nature of extinction, the "Red Queen Hypothesis" and a host of other evolutionary science.

How did you miss all these?

Now I know that creation is not only a viable alternative, but the best explanation given the entire body of evidence.

People who actually learn about the evidence have come to a different conclusion. Perhaps, the "evidence" they gave you is not what you think it is.

Just as the electron microscope has dispelled some of the mythological beliefs about how the microscopic world just fell together, more advanced research in other fields will eventually prove creation to be true (unless the Lord comes back first).

Creationism is a dying religion. When I began reading about the issue, most creationists denied evolution of new species. Now most of them admit to even higher taxa evolving. Many of them have left creationism to ID (which allows for evolution, with God's intervention).

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong, too. For example, it was predicted, on evolutionary theory, that bacteria would rapidly become resistant to penicillin. They did. Evolutionary theory predicted dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and reptiles with mammal characteristics, all of which were found after the prediction. You've been misled again.

Non-sequitor. Again, you show you lack of understanding of the issue at hand, bacterial resistance is not a prediction of evolution, but it is an evidence of special creation.

It's been observed to evolve. Sorry. No special creation needed.

Creation predicts that intelligently designed creatures will be able to adapt to a variety of conditions. The other examples you gave are on commonality.

Land animals with legs adapting to a legless life in the sea would be pretty hard to describe as anything but evolution.

Commonality is also a prediction one would make from the creation perspective. A Honda Civic has things in common with a Honda Accord. Nothing amazing about this, they had a common designer.

That won't work on two counts. First, we see "common design" in whales, sharks, icthosaurs, and teleosts. Yet none of them show common descent. But they show common descent from other animals that don't look the same at all.

Second, we see things like viral remnants in the DNA (in the same places) of related organisms, but not in unrelated organisms. Why would God stick viral remnants in the same place in two unrelated organisms? Your concept requires that God be dishonest.

If your implication about feather and legs is an attempt to discuss intermediates, then let’s discuss that. The fossil record clearly shows there are no intermediates, unless you definition of intermediate is so loose as to render it ineffectual for evolutionary theory.

That's a testable idea. Let's try it out. Just so we agree what we're talking about, what would you consider to be an "intermediate" organism?

Often, creationists think that it means something like a cross between a bird and a fish. But let's get that figured out, and we can go on.

The fact is that there are no missing links, the chain is non-existent.

"Missing link" is not a scientific term, but it suggests to me that you mean that there is no evidence of an organism between groups thought to be related to each other. Is this what you mean?

Barbarian observes:
Religion, depending on faith, has no need of science.

Interesting statement. Science also is dependent upon faith.

Science depends on evidence, not faith.

It takes enormous faith to believe in evolution in light of the evidence.

It appears that you don't know the evidence for evolution. Would you like to learn about it?

I believe the primary tenant of the faith of evolution is called “methodological naturalism”.

Actually, methodological naturalism is just a method. Like a plumber who never considers the possibility that your clogged pipes might be caused by demons, scientists expect to see natural causes for natural phenomena. And yet both plumbers and scientists are often Christians, who deeply love God. How can this be so?

When you know that, you'll understand methodological naturalism.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Reading from tables is not "doing physics". That would by like saying your doctor is doing evolutionary science when he prescribes a schedule for you to take antibiotics. On second thought, you might have something there. Even if the engineer and doctor are not thinking about the science involved, they do depend on it.

The tables are developed from physics, empirical physics, but what of empirical evolution, there is no such animal.

You've been misled there. There are numerous observed examples of the evolution of new genes. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Yes. Please give me all cited examples of where new “genetic information”, not non-beneficial mutations of existing genetic information, have been observed.

Technically, macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa (species, genera, etc.) This has been directly observed. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Yes, please tell all about the non-botanical and bacterial examples you have, you know, the ones involving animals. Or would that be to hard for the Galatian. Plus, must you keep your ‘technicality” so narrow (minded). Macroevolution deals with bringing entirely new organisms into existence, not slight, narrowly defined, changes resulting from changing existing information in the gene code. Show me one observation of an organism becoming something entirely different.

Actually, if you really did that, you surely would have known about observed macroevolution. What scientific journals did you read?

You have proof for macroevolution. Well, its not a theory anymore then is it. Please submit your proof for peer review. Should we notify the Nobel prize commission to prepare your laureate?

Sounds to me like you've been very well indoctrinated. But I've yet to see a scientist who, when challenged on evolution or any other science, did not cite evidence, rather than faith.

Evidence is always interpreted through the lens of the observer. If you believe things happened naturally, you will interpret the evidence as so. No, science will indoctrinate you into a naturalistic world view, or are you unaware of this?

You're wrong on that, too. Most of us are theists. And the biggist part of those are Christians.

So, more than 90% of the world population believes in a god of some sort or the other. The word Christian today is like any other word. The Pharisees were the good godly theologians and scholars of their day. Don’t you know they bragged about being Pharisees. I would say that most so called “Christians” will find there is more to following the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that just saying you’re a Christian.

That's odd, too. I can think of many things in evolutionary science that have been criticized in scientific journals. Some of them have led to changes in evolutionary theory. What journals were you reading?

Only obscure ones like Scientific American, Science, Nature, etc. You know, just the ones people read that want the layman’ discussion. Gee, some articles lead to changes in evolutionary theory? I’m really impressed at such a free exchange of thought. How many of these lead to saying the theory is garbage, which it is. Your ridiculous mischaracterization of the slanted bias of these publications is indicative of the dishonest nature with which you deal with the entire issue. Someone who fails to recognize and admit the bias in these journals is truly blind.

Ah, Scientific American is not a scientific journal. It's just a science magazine, albeit a pretty good one. But if you read it faithfully, you would have seen controversy about punctuated equillibrium, neutralist theories, "mitochondrial Eve", the nature of extinction, the "Red Queen Hypothesis" and a host of other evolutionary science.

How did you miss all these?

Did I miss how they admitted that naturalistic explanations are woefully lacking to explain the complexity of the natural world? The discussion on Eve was good because it calls into question the ludicrous posits about the duration of time modern man has been in existance. Of course the obvious conclusion escapes them. Punctuated equilibrium is a feeble attempt to keep a dead theory alive. Yes, I have somewhat heard of these issues.

People who actually learn about the evidence have come to a different conclusion. Perhaps, the "evidence" they gave you is not what you think it is.

Oh, how about the Cambrian explosion, is that non-scientific. Kind of hard to have evolution when your so called “fossil record” shows that everything came into existence at once and 95% of everything that ever lived is extinct now. How about them fossil layers. Where is all this slow progression from the simple to the complex. You guys have that tree of life up side down it seems.

Creationism is a dying religion. When I began reading about the issue, most creationists denied evolution of new species. Now most of them admit to even higher taxa evolving. Many of them have left creationism to ID (which allows for evolution, with God's intervention).

Are you a Christian? I’m serious, you use the name Galatian, are you implying you’re a Christian who thinks creation is not true? Special creation is the only rational explanation for the observed phenomena. The ID folks have done a lot to help the cause of Creationists. They may not accept all the tenets of creation, but they are scientists who have been deprogrammed somewhat of the cult of naturalistic evolution. These are not apostate creationists, these are converted scientists. How long have you been studying this issue, 2 days.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong, too. For example, it was predicted, on evolutionary theory, that bacteria would rapidly become resistant to penicillin. They did. Evolutionary theory predicted dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and reptiles with mammal characteristics, all of which were found after the prediction. You've been misled again.

So you are a pagan. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's been observed to evolve. Sorry. No special creation needed.

Ooh, the prophetic nature of evolution. Not impressed, site reasons stated earlier.

Land animals with legs adapting to a legless life in the sea would be pretty hard to describe as anything but evolution.

Please site examples. I certainly know of no creature that lost legs adapting to water. But, now, wouldn’t that be an example of losing something. Is that how evolution works, you keep loosing things till you evolve a higher order of organism. Ok, I’ve got it now, thanks.

That won't work on two counts. First, we see "common design" in whales, sharks, icthosaurs, and teleosts. Yet none of them show common descent. But they show common descent from other animals that don't look the same at all.

Second, we see things like viral remnants in the DNA (in the same places) of related organisms, but not in unrelated organisms. Why would God stick viral remnants in the same place in two unrelated organisms? Your concept requires that God be dishonest.

What, back off of the allergy medicine so you can make some sense. Did you have a point here?

Science depends on evidence, not faith.

Does it take faith to believe in evolution? The obvious answer is yes. The facts are incomplete, only through faith can one arrive at the conclusion that the creation can be explained by naturalistic phenomena. Don’t tell me scientists don’t rely on faith. This is the key difference between science and religion, religion relies on faith and knows it.

It appears that you don't know the evidence for evolution. Would you like to learn about it?

One thing I am sure of from our initial encounter, it won’t be you who teaches me.

Actually, methodological naturalism is just a method. Like a plumber who never considers the possibility that your clogged pipes might be caused by demons, scientists expect to see natural causes for natural phenomena. And yet both plumbers and scientists are often Christians, who deeply love God. How can this be so?

When you know that, you'll understand methodological naturalism.

Your willing ignorance of the concept of faith and fact is what I’m going to educate you on. Since no one knows for sure based on facts how all things got here, whether you believe in special creation or naturalistic evolution, you do so by faith.

 

[UTEOTW]

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to see it has been considered. The website mentioned the differences but not the reasons. I'll have to see if anyone smarter than me has a critique.

Originally posted by Helen:
As far as the black hole in the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, we see it as it is NOW. When we look out in space, we can see the way things WERE. This is pretty different! There is no reason to assume our black hole was any different from what we are seeing 'out there.'

from Barry: Initially, the black holes were so energetic that the quasars associated with them were even more brilliant than some of the most energtic quasars we see closer in. The figure that was used in the calculation for the energy of a quasar is for one of the quasars nearer to us than those on the frontiers of the cosmos. There, the quasars are over a hundred times more luminous than those closer in, and so this has to be factored into the calculation. The calculation itself is correct; it is just the wrong figure that is being used.

But there is not enough mass to have ever been that bright no matter how far back you go. For a given mass, there is a limit on the rate of energy release. At a certain point, the rate of energy release will prevent matter from falling upon the black hole at any faster rate and will therefore give a maximum luminosity point. I understand that some of the most brilliant objects are at the edge of observability. But without the mass to power a quasar, going back further in time does nothing to get to the brightness you want for our galaxy.

 

[The Galatian]

Oh, how about the Cambrian explosion, is that non-scientific. Kind of hard to have evolution when your so called “fossil record” shows that everything came into existence at once

You've been lied to about that. There is widespread evidence of Precambrian life. The Vendian fossils, for example (Ediacaran fauna). What happened at the Cambrian explosion was the evolution of motile organisms with completly sclerotized bodies. So it's partially the fact that the Cambrian is the first time we can find whole bodies of many kinds of animal, and partially the sudden evolution of many kinds of them as they achieved a new level of fitness.

and 95% of everything that ever lived is extinct now.

And yet the world is chock full of living things, so that the only way to have anything new, is for something to be removed. How could the world have held forty times (by your extremely conservative estimate) as many living things? Not possible. They could not have all lived at once.

How about them fossil layers. Where is all this slow progression from the simple to the complex.

You mean, for example, chordates first, then craniates, then agnathans, then jawed fish, and so on? Got 'em.

You mean partially-sclerotized arthropods first, then fully sclerotized, then diversification from the basic "all segments alike" form by tagmosis and specialization? Got 'em.

Evolution does not require increasing complexity. Sometimes it leads to reduced complexity. But early on, things got more complex, and it does show in the fossil record.

You guys have that tree of life up side down it seems.

Nope. You were misled on that one, too.

Are you a Christian? I’m serious, you use the name Galatian, are you implying you’re a Christian who thinks creation is not true?

All Christians know creation is a fact. It is the false religion of creationism we object to.

Special creation is the only rational explanation for the observed phenomena. The ID folks have done a lot to help the cause of Creationists.

They serve as a halfway house for recovering creationists. Michael Denton, for example, is now an evolutionist, as is Behe.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong, too. For example, it was predicted, on evolutionary theory, that bacteria would rapidly become resistant to penicillin. They did. Evolutionary theory predicted dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and reptiles with mammal characteristics, all of which were found after the prediction. You've been misled again.

So you are a pagan. Thanks for clearing that up.

Boy, do you have a wrong number.

Barbarian observes:
It's been observed to evolve. Sorry. No special creation needed.

Ooh, the prophetic nature of evolution.

Prophesy is revealed knowledge. Predictions are based on evidence.

Barbarian on assertion that evolution of whales is not evolution:
Land animals with legs adapting to a legless life in the sea would be pretty hard to describe as anything but evolution.

Please site examples.

Sure. Pakicetus is an early whale which lived primarily on land. How do we know it was a whale? Because it had particular anatomical features found only on whales. Ambulocetus is a later whale, with those features, but was primarily aquatic. And so on. The evidence is rather compelling now, although we knew little of them just a few years ago. Yet evolutionary theory predicted all this.

I certainly know of no creature that lost legs adapting to water. But, now, wouldn’t that be an example of losing something. Is that how evolution works, you keep loosing things till you evolve a higher order of organism.

Nope. "Higher" has no meaning in evolution. And whales, while losing legs, gained an entire assemblage of new features that made them remarkable among mammals.

Ok, I’ve got it now, thanks.

Not yet. But we've still got a long way to go.

Barbarian observes:
That won't work on two counts. First, we see "common design" in whales, sharks, icthosaurs, and teleosts. Yet none of them show common descent. But they show common descent from other animals that don't look the same at all.

Second, we see things like viral remnants in the DNA (in the same places) of related organisms, but not in unrelated organisms. Why would God stick viral remnants in the same place in two unrelated organisms? Your concept requires that God be dishonest.

What, back off of the allergy medicine so you can make some sense.

Did you read the part about insults and mockery? A Christian should be able to conduct himself better than that.

Did you have a point here?

Yep. "Common design" won't work, because we see great differences among "commonly designed" organisms, but for those showing fossil and other evidence of common descent, there are only modifications of the same things. So we know common descent is true, and common design is a false idea.

Barbarian observes:
Science depends on evidence, not faith.

Does it take faith to believe in evolution? The obvious answer is yes.

The error there is in "beleiving in" evolution. One should only accept scientific theories on the evidence. If people believe it on faith, they are unwise.

The facts are incomplete, only through faith can one arrive at the conclusion that the creation can be explained by naturalistic phenomena.

Fortunately, science is inductive, so we can still do science, even in the absence of complete knowledge. We will never know everything there is to know about anything. But science still works rather well.

Don’t tell me scientists don’t rely on faith.

I rely on faith. For God. In science, evidence is all that counts. I think most scientists are like that.

This is the key difference between science and religion, religion relies on faith and knows it.

They misled you on that, too. Again, if you challenge a scientist on some aspect of science, he'll start citing evidence, not faith.

Barbarian observes:
It appears that you don't know the evidence for evolution. Would you like to learn about it?

One thing I am sure of from our initial encounter, it won’t be you who teaches me.

Perhaps not. Perhaps no one will. There are none so blind as he who will not see...

Your willing ignorance of the concept of faith

Boy, do you have a wrong number.

 

[The Galatian]

The tables are developed from physics, empirical physics, but what of empirical evolution,

You mean like population genetics, the Hardy-Weinberg equation, things like that? That's how the drug protocols were established.

there is no such animal.

My 8th grade class does some basic labs on variation and selection. My AP kids can explain to you why harmful recessives show an asymptotic curve.

Yes. Please give me all cited examples of where new “genetic information”, not non-beneficial mutations of existing genetic information, have been observed.

A bacterium that evolved the ability to digest nylon oligomer. The new information evolved by a frameshift mutation.

Another would be a gene for resistance to artieroscleosis (hardening of the arteries).

Barbarian on macroevolution:
Would you like to learn about some of them?

[/quote]Yes, please tell all about the non-botanical and bacterial examples you have, you know, the ones involving animals. Or would that be to hard for the Galatian.[/quote]

The Faroe Island mouse evolved in historical times. Mammals are tougher to do, because they have longer lifetimes, but fortunately, mice breed fast enough that we actually have one directly observed. The "Norway Rat" (actually Asian) seems to have been unknown anywhere before the middle ages, and spread rapidly at that time. It is quite similar to a rat living now in Central Asia.

Macroevolution deals with bringing entirely new organisms into existence, not slight, narrowly defined, changes resulting from changing existing information in the gene code.

No, that's wrong. Evolution only works by modifying existing things. It can only work with what is already there.

You have proof for macroevolution. Well, its not a theory anymore then is it.

I don't think you understand what a theory is.

Please submit your proof for peer review. Should we notify the Nobel prize commission to prepare your laureate?

I've been beaten to it. Dobzhansky, I think. published the first directly observed speciation.

Barbarian observes:
But I've yet to see a scientist who, when challenged on evolution or any other science, did not cite evidence, rather than faith.

No, science will indoctrinate you into a naturalistic world view, or are you unaware of this?

Probably so, since I happen to be a Christian, and my outlook is not naturalistic. I only adopt a methodological naturalism to do science.

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong on that, too. Most of us are theists. And the biggist part of those are Christians.

[quote[So, more than 90% of the world population believes in a god of some sort or the other. The word Christian today is like any other word.[/quote]

Not for those of us who live it.

The Pharisees were the good godly theologians and scholars of their day. Don’t you know they bragged about being Pharisees.

I know of people like that saying that other people are not "real Christians".

I would say that most so-called “Christians” will find there is more to following the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that just saying you’re a Christian.

Perhaps so. Presumption is an ugly thing, sometimes.

Barbarian on the alleged lack of criticism of evolutionary theory in the literature:
What journals were you reading?

Only obscure ones like Scientific American, Science, Nature, etc.

"Scientific American" is a popular magazine, not a science journal.

You know, just the ones people read that want the layman’ discussion. Gee, some articles lead to changes in evolutionary theory? I’m really impressed at such a free exchange of thought. How many of these lead to saying the theory is garbage, which it is.

None. But for that, evidence would be required. And there isn't any for that assertion. However, the theory has been found wanting and was corrected a number of times in the past. That's how science works. If a better one was to be found, it would be adopted and the old one discarded.

Your ridiculous mischaracterization of the slanted bias of these publications is indicative of the dishonest nature with which you deal with the entire issue. Someone who fails to recognize and admit the bias in these journals is truly blind.

Your somewhat intemperate language suggests the opposite is true.

Barbarian observes regarding challenges to evolutionary theory in the literature:
How did you miss all these?

Did I miss how they admitted that naturalistic explanations are woefully lacking to explain the complexity of the natural world?

You missed criticisms of evolutionary theory, possibly because you didn't read the magazine completely.

The discussion on Eve was good because it calls into question the ludicrous posits about the duration of time modern man has been in existance.

Actually, mitochondrial Eve isn't about the length of time man has been around. It's only about the last identified common female ancestor.

Since you read it, could you summarize the arguments against the idea?

Of course the obvious conclusion escapes them. Punctuated equilibrium is a feeble attempt to keep a dead theory alive.

Actually, PE is merely formalizing ideas and information turned up much earlier by Ernst Mayr and others. Although it probably is not as widespread as Gould thought it was (even he admitted evidence for gradual evolution), it is now generally recognized to happen.

Barbarian suggests:
People who actually learn about the evidence have come to a different conclusion. Perhaps, the "evidence" they gave you is not what you think it is.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by The Meatros:
Just a few quick things. Proofs are for math, not science. Evolution was "proven" many years ago and I'm sure you have heard this before, but evolution is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

Proof are for math and not science??? Where do you get this stuff. What do you think our mathematics originated from, huh???? Mathematics has been called the language of science, and rightly so. All our mathematics were derived from scientific research, and in turn are a driver of scientific research. But anyone with even a cursory level understanding of science would know this. What you mean to say is mathematics has not place in the faith of evolution. With this I agree.

Evolution was proven??? Not in your wildest dreams is this true. So evolution is a proven theory? This is certainly an oxymoronic expression if I ever heard one. Probability does prove that protein structures, which are infinitesimally less complex than cells, which are infinitesimally less complex than eyes, which are infinitesimally less complex than brains, are so astronomically improbable as to make just the origin of the building block of life not possible by any stretch of the imagination without the intervention of intelligence. Once irreducible complexity of these systems at an integrated level is brought into the discussion it is apparent that we are dealing with complexity Darwin and others could have never imagined in their wildest dreams (and you still can’t imagine). You see, it is easy to make wild, wide sweeping assumptions about things when you do not know the details. As science brings into focus the details of the complexity of the known universe it becomes evident that we exist in a highly ordered and complex universe, and not one that pops into existence out of nothing and creates living molecular nanomachine systems that build and sustain sentient life on this little amazing blue planet. Only by putting the presumptive blinders of methodological naturalism one could someone be so devoid of light on this issue. Sad, truly sad.

I think you intentionally failed to see his point. There are more christians who accept evolution than who dismiss it. Just because they don't follow your definition (instead they follow God's), doesn't mean they are 'Pharisees'.

I didn’t miss any points. The Pharisees were the scholars and theologians of their day, and their wisdom, based on fallible human facts and reasoning, is why they rejected God when he came in the flesh. That’s Bible my friend. Oh, and Jesus did affirm creation as a fact, or have you not heard that in the beginning God made them male and female? You know who He was speaking to when he said that don’t you?

You are confusing the terms (or perhaps the terms aren't clear), in any event, I'm sure the Galation meant YEC or IDers. Every Christian believes that God created the universe, it's just a small minority of Christians put a limit on God by saying God created the universe in 6-10k years.

Again, what is your definition of the word “Christian”? Would you judge everyone that professes Christ as possessing Christ?

No limits placed on God here. I think the limiters are those that think God used misfits, death and suffering to perfect His creation when He plainly says that He did not. God says he made everything perfect and we wrecked it. No, you limit God to the human facts and wisdom of today just like those of the past. Since we are still in the dark ages scientifically I would say this is a very foolish position indeed.

, when you can't argue science and reason, label them names. "Cult"...

When they step outside the realm of empiricism and address origins in a way that is non-biblical they become a cult. Origins are a matter of faith in religion or science. Any faith that misrepresents the facts, suppresses opposing opinion, and makes outlandish claims like the scientific community does today about origins should be classified as a religious cult. I love science, but only in the discovery and revelation of God brilliant creation though honest and open empiricism. Scholarship and reliance on man’s wisdom was a cult when God came in the flesh, and it still is today.

I see you like bearing false witness, now that's certianly an anti-christian value.

“Judge not brother”. I bet you like to use this expression don’t you?

He is making sense, you are obfuscating and insulting him. Again, you are showing the example of bad Christian values.

You know judgmentalism was a characteristic of the Pharisees don’t you?

Only if you haven't an idea of what evolution is.

Baloney.

No offense, but you have to read all the evidence and science that surrounds evolution before you can come to an honest evaluation of it.

You judge me as bad example and then you say “No offense”. Comical.

Just because *YOU* don't know how things got here, doesn't mean that no one does. You are confusing your lack of knowledge with a lack of knowledge of those who are educated in these matters. It's an easy thing to do. Here's an example: I haven't studied Quantum Physics, that doesn't mean that there are not people out there who understand quantum physics. The same goes for you and evolution. Just because you haven't studied evolution doesn't mean that their aren't people out there who haven't studied evolution-in fact there *are* plenty of people who study it everyday.

No, just because you *DON’T* know that no one knows how we got here based on scientific evidence doesn’t mean you should attribute more than you aught to those who understand components of a highly speculative theory of origins that is in the realm of faith and not science.

 

[Meatros]

What you mean to say is mathematics has not place in the faith of evolution. With this I agree.

If I *meant* to say that I would have. If you didn't understand what I said, you should have just asked.
Check this site out.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

So evolution is a proven theory? This is certainly an oxymoronic expression if I ever heard one.

Don't know what a scientific theory means, eh? Well my response to that is above.

Oh, and Jesus did affirm creation as a fact

Never argued that, I accept that God created the world. It's this notion of a Young Earth that is unacceptable.

“Judge not brother”. I bet you like to use this expression don’t you?

Why not just respond to what I wrote as opposed to assuming things about me?

You know judgmentalism was a characteristic of the Pharisees don’t you

I see, so you believe I'm one of the Pharisees, well guess what my opinion is of you?

Baloney.

Nope, it's definitely not baloney. I suppose I was right in my assertion.

You judge me as bad example and then you say “No offense”. Comical.

Read again and look at the context. I said that you didn't know about evolution and therefore you should learn about it before you judge it.

No, just because you *DON’T* know that no one knows how we got here based on scientific evidence doesn’t mean you should attribute more than you aught to those who understand components of a highly speculative theory of origins that is in the realm of faith and not science.

Again, you equate it to faith, showing a lack of knowledge about science and evolution. I don't mind if you think it doesn't have scientific evidence as support-at least then you understand what the difference between science and religion is. What you are doing is obfuscating the terms because you don't *like* what you perceive to be the theory of evolution. You are trying to imply it's faith, in order to make yourself feel you have a reason to validly deny the findings of thousands of scientists.

Yet as I've shown in other threads, it's simply impossible that this earth is young. Unless of course you'd like to explain the meteor problem.

 

[A_Christian]

Meatros:

I feel strongly that the meteor "problem" has
been answered well enough. Much better in fact
than your "evolution" vs. Bible narrative
problem.

I have no problem with meteors having hit the
earth in the ancient past of say that time
of the Flood and just after for possibly years.
This would have triggered the ice age.

Your problem is you think God would made it a LAW
not to mix different material together when
weaving cloth; however, you feel that GOD himself
would weave the fabric of the Bible narrative
by mixing fact and allegory (a sin far worse).
In the case of the fabric, the end result is
of inferior quality. In the case of the Bible,
the end result would be CONFUSION. Who is the
author of CONFUSION. It isn't GOD!

The only ones who wish to introduce allegory
as part of the Bible fabric, are those who wish
to cover their own sins. The sin of fornication,
sodomy, divorce, women preachers. The list
goes on and on. Prove the Bible fallible and
one can believe and promote anything one wishes.
Take the Bible on its word and you are faced
with real soul searching.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
You've been lied to about that. There is widespread evidence of Precambrian life. The Vendian fossils, for example (Ediacaran fauna). What happened at the Cambrian explosion was the evolution of motile organisms with completly sclerotized bodies. So it's partially the fact that the Cambrian is the first time we can find whole bodies of many kinds of animal, and partially the sudden evolution of many kinds of them as they achieved a new level of fitness.

Wow, how impressive, such widespread evidence. Gee, and it’s all lies huh??? Good job of skirting the real issue (not), which is the lack of Precambrian evidence. Oh, and soft bodied and slightly hardened bodied fossils are also found in all layers aren’t they, but that does not solve the problem. The enormous proliferation of motile complex living creatures with no evident progression (evolution) pre-initiated is an insurmountable problem for those that rely on their interpretation of the fossil record as proof of evolution.

And yet the world is chock full of living things, so that the only way to have anything new, is for something to be removed. How could the world have held forty times (by your extremely conservative estimate) as many living things? Not possible. They could not have all lived at once.

How oh how, how could it be?? Could it be that the same environment that sustained creatures that were so enormous as to defy human imagination until discovered???? Oh, could it be toto, that we are not in Kansas anymore. You evolutionist have the wildest imaginations when it comes to this sacred belief of yours, but then are unable to conceive of any possibilities outside of it. Cultic behavior by the very definition. One thing is certain from the fossil record, life in amazing diversity and complexity came on the scene simultaneously in all its glory, and was sustained for a great period of time. So the problem is not whether the earth could sustain it, it obviously did, the question is how. There are many good theories out there on this, all of which are beyond your imagination (closed loop logic type compartment).

You mean, for example, chordates first, then craniates, then agnathans, then jawed fish, and so on? Got 'em.

You mean partially-sclerotized arthropods first, then fully sclerotized, then diversification from the basic "all segments alike" form by tagmosis and specialization? Got 'em.

Evolution does not require increasing complexity. Sometimes it leads to reduced complexity. But early on, things got more complex, and it does show in the fossil record.

Did you just say that??? Unbelievable!! May I quote you (I will anyway)? I will certainly save this for later discussions. I just love it “Evolution does not require increasing complexity”. Perfect!!! All empirical evidence show evolution’s only mechanism is reduced complexity, I guess that makes evolution synonymous with entropy.

Nope. You were misled on that one, too.

That is quite a dogmatic statement for someone who does not mix faith with science.

All Christians know creation is a fact. It is the false religion of creationism we object to.

The author of Christianity doesn’t believe in evolutionism, who cares what those who claim to be His followers say when the very author disagrees.

They serve as a halfway house for recovering creationists. Michael Denton, for example, is now an evolutionist, as is Behe.

Halfway is exactly how I put it, they’re converted evolutionists, but not quite full creationists. But that’s ok, it’s a step in the right direction.

Boy, do you have a wrong number.

I ain’t yur boy, and I couldn’t care less about your number.

Prophesy is revealed knowledge. Predictions are based on evidence.

Gee, and Webster’s says that prophesy is any prediction of the future, guess you need to call them and get this straightened out. Prophesy can and is used in the sense I used it, but I guess you were running out of intelligent comments and had to resort to, well, what you resorted to.

Sure. Pakicetus is an early whale which lived primarily on land. How do we know it was a whale? Because it had particular anatomical features found only on whales. Ambulocetus is a later whale, with those features, but was primarily aquatic. And so on. The evidence is rather compelling now, although we knew little of them just a few years ago. Yet evolutionary theory predicted all this.

Pakicetus is based on a few skull fragments. Give me a break already. Do you really expect to use the pagan imaginations of evolutionist cult members as proof of evolution??? Ambulocetus, another incomplete specimen with no pelvic girdle and other necessary fossils to link the bone fragments together. This is speculative at best, downright misleading at worst. And even if these fraudulent findings were true, they would hardly constitute 1/10,000 of the intermediates necessary to demonstrate an evolutionary sequence for just this mammal to whales posit.

Did you read the part about insults and mockery? A Christian should be able to conduct himself better than that.

Did Jesus insult and mock the Pharisees? How about the OT prophets, did they mock and disdain those that rejected God’s wisdom? Open you mind and quit judging based on your cultural expression of Christianity.

Fortunately, science is inductive, so we can still do science, even in the absence of complete knowledge. We will never know everything there is to know about anything. But science still works rather well.

Good, then quite deducing origins from incomplete facts.

I rely on faith. For God. In science, evidence is all that counts. I think most scientists are like that.

Good, then quit presuming naturalism and let the evidence speak for itself.

They misled you on that, too. Again, if you challenge a scientist on some aspect of science, he'll start citing evidence, not faith.

Nobody mislead me, this is mine. No, scientists state evidence filtered through their biased faith based lens, just as you have. Whether its naturalism, or special creation, both are taken on faith. Are you a learned man and know not these things?

 

[Meatros]

Meatros:

I feel strongly that the meteor "problem" has
been answered well enough. Much better in fact
than your "evolution" vs. Bible narrative
problem.

Where? I've seen one attempt and it doesn't fit.

I have no problem with meteors having hit the
earth in the ancient past of say that time
of the Flood and just after for possibly years.
This would have triggered the ice age.

Wait, you accept a young earth and an ice age?? Or are you saying you accept an old earth?

Again, you seem to be downplaying the damage of the meteors. Here's the problem, not only are there several earth altering meteors that have hit, there are about 130 other large and destructive meteors. Keep in mind this isn't including the everyday small meteors that also hit the earth. It's simply not possible that all these meteors hit right before or after the flood and have *anything* at all survive. The biblical narrative concerning the flood doesn't mention boiling waters or any other destructive damage.

The next paragraph you preceed to put words in my mouth and then argue those words. I'm not going to respond to your argument with the 'fictional' me. It's a slippery slope of illogic that you bring up and if you can't recognize it, I hardly see the point in me trying to address it.

 

[john6:63]

Faith, Fact & Feeling

I’ve got two words….GO VOLS! Your posts are outstanding! This is like a book series. I can’t wait for the next post!

To the non-believers of a 6 literal day creation, I’ve got a question for ya.

In Exodus 20:11, we find out why a infinite Creator God created everything in 6 literal days, when he very well could’ve created everything in no time.

The Bible tells us that God created Adam on day six and he lived through day 6 and day 7, but when Adam died he was only a mere 930 years old. Whoa now, we have a major problem. If each of these days were thousands or millions of years, how could Adam die at 930 yrs old?

(Romans 3:4) “…let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written…”

 

[A_Christian]

Yes, Meatros----there was an ice age AFTER the
Flood. It took centuries for the earth to
recover after the environmental disaster of
the Flood. I have no problem of an ice bridge
forming to North America.

 

[Meatros]

Yet you take this ice age completely on what? It's not mentioned in the bible and science clearly does not support it. So why do you believe in an ice age?

I have to admit, I'm a little thrown by this. I mean, what purpose does an ice age have?

 

[Helen]

check Job 38:29-30

 

[john6:63]

I’m anxious to hear this response.

 

[Administrator2]

Several posts were deleted due to insults.

 

[Meatros]

I had completely forgotten that verse. While I personally don't think it refers to an ice age, I'll give you credit in that it could remotely refer to an ice age, meaning my assertion about it not being in the bible at all could be incorrect (depending of course on interpretation).

 

[The Galatian]

(Barbarian observes cites numerous instances of Precambrian Life)

Good job of skirting the real issue (not), which is the lack of Precambrian evidence.

I thought I posted the evidence before. Well, here we go again...

First known unicellular organisms:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-03/uoc--usc030602.php

First cyanobacteria:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

First (soft bodied) metazoans:

http://www.palaeos.com/Ecology/Biota/Ediacara.html

First motile organisms with hard body parts:

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Tommotian.htm

All Precambrian.

Oh, and soft bodied and slightly hardened bodied fossils are also found in all layers aren’t they,

Yep. Many descendants of those organism live today. But as the information above points out, exoskeletons evolved gradually, and weren't fully complete until the Cambrian.

The enormous proliferation of motile complex living creatures with no evident progression (evolution) pre-initiated is an insurmountable problem...

Nope. We see all sorts of gradual change, including those leading directly to arthropods and mollusks. Read the links and see.

Barbarian observes:
And yet the world is chock full of living things, so that the only way to have anything new, is for something to be removed. How could the world have held forty times (by your extremely conservative estimate) as many living things? Not possible. They could not have all lived at once.

Could it be that the same environment that sustained creatures that were so enormous as to defy human imagination until discovered????

Not without an appeal to magic of some kind.

You evolutionist have the wildest imaginations when it comes to this sacred belief of yours,

You suppose that somehow the Earth could support at least 40 times the organisms it does now, and you think scientists have active imaginations?

Barbarian on some instances of increasing complexity in evolution:
You mean, for example, chordates first, then craniates, then agnathans, then jawed fish, and so on? Got 'em.

You mean partially-sclerotized arthropods first, then fully sclerotized, then diversification from the basic "all segments alike" form by tagmosis and specialization? Got 'em.

Evolution does not require increasing complexity. Sometimes it leads to reduced complexity. But early on, things got more complex, and it does show in the fossil record.

Did you just say that??? Unbelievable!! May I quote you (I will anyway)? I will certainly save this for later discussions. I just love it “Evolution does not require increasing complexity”.

Nope. Sometimes, it results in more complexity, sometimes less. I gave you two examples of more, above.

I guess that makes evolution synonymous with entropy.

Entropy is about heat. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time.

(Barbarian comments on IDer Michael Denton, who has become an evolutionist)

Halfway is exactly how I put it, they’re converted evolutionists, but not quite full creationists. But that’s ok, it’s a step in the right direction.

(Barbarian, on accusations that he is a pagan)
Boy, do you have a wrong number.

Barbarian observes:
Prophesy is revealed knowledge. Predictions are based on evidence.

Gee, and Webster’s says that prophesy is any prediction of the future...

I have three dictionaries in my library, and none of them say that. What dictionary are you using?

Barbarian on whale evolution:
Sure. Pakicetus is an early whale which lived primarily on land. How do we know it was a whale? Because it had particular anatomical features found only on whales. Ambulocetus is a later whale, with those features, but was primarily aquatic. And so on. The evidence is rather compelling now, although we knew little of them just a few years ago. Yet evolutionary theory predicted all this.

Pakicetus is based on a few skull fragments.

Nope. Here's what has been found, so far..

http://www.harunyahya.org/resimler/image001.jpg

One species was about 50% recovered. More are turning up now.

Ambulocetus, another incomplete specimen with no pelvic girdle and other necessary fossils to link the bone fragments together.

Sorry. Here's a photo for you of the actual specien. Note the hammer for size comparison:

http://www.prehistorics.com/AmbulocetusBonesPhoto.jpg

(insults deleted)

Barbarian observes:
Fortunately, science is inductive, so we can still do science, even in the absence of complete knowledge. We will never know everything there is to know about anything. But science still works rather well.

Good, then quite deducing origins from incomplete facts.

As I said, science always works with incomplete information. But it works.

Barbarian observes:
I rely on faith. For God. In science, evidence is all that counts. I think most scientists are like that.

Good, then quit presuming naturalism and let the evidence speak for itself.

Better yet, click the links and check it out. No presumptions necessary.

Barbarian observes:
Again, if you challenge a scientist on some aspect of science, he'll start citing evidence, not faith.