Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Is this the new understated, non centered, normal font Michael?
It took me a while to figure out what was different about you.
I like this new you!!

Dear iouae,

Yes, this is how I usually post, but for you and a few choice others, I have been using different fonts, sizes and colors. If you'd prefer this instead of beautiful posts, no problem. I will keep it in mind.

You keep hanging in there!! God Bless Your Heart And Soul Whole Bunches!!

Michael

 

[noguru]

If you want to take sides on what is true, it is best if you do more than just cast your vote. Specific evidence is always nice.

Oh come on, creationists don't need evidence. All they have to do is point to mysteries in the natural world and pound their chests asserting "God did it".

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Davis,

6days is laughing because it's funny. Not because he doesn't have a better response. He's answered you tons of times without laughter, so I don't know what you are trying to say. Sounds like you are the one with not much to say. People can tell what's going on.

Michael

I don’t see anything funny about defending the slaughter of infants. Do you, Mike? I don’t see the humor in divinely sanctioned mass rape. Or genocide. And I honestly have to wonder what kind of mental numbing has to go on when believers are reading those accounts in “God’s Word”.

 

[Yorzhik]

MACs are creationists who believe that there is no reason to restrict themselves to scientific or YEC timescales. They can have exactly the right amount of time as is required by whatever it is they happen to believe at the time. :think:

I restrict myself to the biblical timescale because it is true. However, if science did not back up that timescale, I'd not blame anyone for disagreeing with the bible. The good thing is that science not only backs up the biblical timescale of YEC, but it becomes more and more obvious that the biblical timescale is correct according to science as we learn more.

It's too bad you throw science in the trash bin in favor of your common descent dogma based on nothing but blind faith in spite of science as if consensus could overcome reality.

 

[Jonahdog]

I restrict myself to the biblical timescale because it is true. However, if science did not back up that timescale, I'd not blame anyone for disagreeing with the bible. The good thing is that science not only backs up the biblical timescale of YEC, but it becomes more and more obvious that the biblical timescale is correct according to science as we learn more.

It's too bad you throw science in the trash bin in favor of your common descent dogma based on nothing but blind faith in spite of science as if consensus could overcome reality.

Wow, what is that you smoke anyway?

 

[Yorzhik]

Any scientist with even a modicum of integrity will make that claim.

I'm just a guy with lots of integrity.

Isn’t the real question – how to know what the “correct age” is?

What is the correct age and how do we know it's correct are two sides of the same coin. One must first pursue the first before they get to the second. In other words, one must be willing to accept what the correct age is, regardless what that correct age ends up being, before one can care about their methods of finding out what the correct age is.

So, no, that's not the "real" question. It's just the next question.

That’s news to me. Are you seriously saying that dating labs don’t do calibration runs on their equipment?

Common descentists hate to read.

I have seen numerous discussions about measurement discrepancies. “Samples that should be the same age” may not come out the same age for any of a variety of reasons – things like the inclusion of sand grains in mollusk shells, or contaminants in igneous rock flows, and so on. But radiological dating, when the proper precautions are taken, is reliable enough that it is widely used by geology labs all over the world. There are numerous studies published showing the measured data, outliers and all, and there most certainly are samples that show excellent data patterns within acceptable margins of error.

Sure, whenever the outliers don't shake the narrative they are published openly. When the outliers don't make sense, then one has to understand the raw data and do the work themselves because, by god, the scientists that did the work will never explain it.

“Never question” is pure hyperbole. Claiming that scientists turn a blind eye to errors just to not threaten a grant is just a cheap indictment of the integrity of the scientists. If you were given a grant to do a scientific study, and you realized the answers you were getting in the study were not what had be anticipated, would you ignore the discrepancies?

They don't turn a blind eye to errors. They just don't question valid data that goes against the common descent narrative.

Plentiful in the same way that there are a vast number of ancient scriptural fragments that have missing words, extra text, misspellings, etc. Does that mean the text of the Bible is just an unreliable mess? No, not at all. In spite of the competing manuscripts Biblical scholars are pretty confident they know what the original text said. When someone finds a previously unknown scroll or palimpsest with variants from the accepted Bible text, do you go into a frenzy? Like you say, the anomalies are plentiful.

Sure they are. And they are the focus of the vast majority of the work being done in the field! While the vast majority of the anomalies that could shake the narrative are ignored in radiometric dating.

In a similar way, if a cut through a hillside is being made for a new highway and periodically samples of the excavated material are taken in for dating, what would be the proper procedure? Previous geological surveys will probably give an idea of what to expect, and it may well be that 5 or 6 samples yield dates about as expected. But then the next sample yields a date that is way off from what was expected. You can expend a lot of effort trying to see why the anomaly, but it may be due to something as simple as a small pocket of unexpected minerals that some rodent had carried down into a burrow, or an erroneous instrument setting, or the sample was contaminated as it was being collected. Instead I would just take extra care on the next few samples, and see if they gave answers again in the expected range. If they do, I would write off the anomaly as just that – an anomaly that is probably not worth spending a lot of effort chasing.

We tried to find a debate partner for an engineer that questioned radiometric dates. One would think even a grad student could make an engineer look foolish taking such a position. But, no, anyone that knew anything about radiometric dating won't touch that one because they know inconsistency being ignored is the norm and that it makes them look bad.

 

[Interplanner]

Is there any wonder that the United Methodist Church would prohibit the teaching of Intelligent Design? Really?

 

[Jose Fly]

I restrict myself to the biblical timescale because it is true. However, if science did not back up that timescale, I'd not blame anyone for disagreeing with the bible. The good thing is that science not only backs up the biblical timescale of YEC, but it becomes more and more obvious that the biblical timescale is correct according to science as we learn more.

It's too bad you throw science in the trash bin in favor of your common descent dogma based on nothing but blind faith in spite of science as if consensus could overcome reality.

I've always wondered why creationists think posts like this are at all compelling. I mean, look at it....nothing but empty, baseless assertions.

The only thing I can come up with is it's a combination of a couple of things. First, in evangelical/fundamentalist Christian world, proclamations of revealed knowledge from authority carry weight. Thus, creationists reflect this in their posts. Science supports YEC because Yorzhik says so. No need for anything actual evidence, supporting material, or anything like that.

Also, I think it's part of the larger spectrum of defensive mechanisms we see from creationists here. These discussions aren't going very well for them, and at some level they know that evolutionary theory and an ancient universe/earth are recognized reality in the scientific community, and have been for over a century, while at the same time creationism hasn't contributed a single thing in at least 100 years. How do they cope with all that? By employing defensive mechanisms....dodging questions, abandoning threads, repeating the same rote mantras over and over, and lots of posts like Yorzhik's....empty claims of "science supports us".

It really is all they have. If they were to abandon arguing via empty, baseless assertion, they wouldn't have much else.

 

[gcthomas]

We tried to find a debate partner for an engineer that questioned radiometric dates.

What do debates with YEC engineers bring to science? Their only use is to generate publicity and misleading selective quotes for the YEC publicity drive. I can see why YEC types want to hold such debates, often with terribly restrictive 'rules' demanded at the last minute when a withdrawal by the scientist will look bad, but I don't see why most scientists would join in.

If the YEC campaigns want real scientists involved they should move their claims closer to scientific reality.

 

[alwight]

I restrict myself to the biblical timescale because it is true. However, if science did not back up that timescale, I'd not blame anyone for disagreeing with the bible. The good thing is that science not only backs up the biblical timescale of YEC, but it becomes more and more obvious that the biblical timescale is correct according to science as we learn more.

It's too bad you throw science in the trash bin in favor of your common descent dogma based on nothing but blind faith in spite of science as if consensus could overcome reality.

Can I pin you down to <10,000 years now and quote this in future? Or perhaps you are suggesting that most YECs have got it wrong by a factor of say 10?
Either way I don't see any concordance with more scientific estimates.

If we throw away common descent for a while can I also now pin you down to a miraculous creation or will you give us your long awaited naturalistic scientific alternative?
However if I were you I'd probably want to get my Nobel Prize in the bag before I did that.

 

[MichaelCadry]

God Is Trying To Tell Us Something!!


NASA/NOAA: 2015 ‘Warmest Year on Record’ – Except in Earth’s Lower Atmosphere


By Barbara Hollingsworth | January 21, 2016 | 3:57 PM EST

(CNSNews.com) – According to land-based and ocean-based surface temperature recordings, 2015 was “the warmest year on record” since 1880, officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said Wednesday during a conference call with reporters.
“Land temperatures broke the all-time warmest record,” said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, adding that the record for warmest month was broken in 10 of the last 12 months.
However, Karl also stated that 2015 was not the hottest year in the lower troposphere, the lowest section of the Earth’s atmosphere, despite what could be an historically strong El Nino causing warmer-than-average temperatures.
According to satellite data that measures temperatures in the lower troposhere, 2015 was only the third warmest year on record, he said.
“We expected about 50 percent stronger response in the atmosphere because of El Nino,” Karl told reporters, explaining that there was “very little response in the satellite and weather balloon data.”
“There’s no record in general in the lower atmosphere… but stay tuned for 2016,” he said, explaining that “warmth occurs after the beginning of a subsequent calendar year.”
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, concurred, adding that because 2016 started with “a very strong El Nino, we expect it to be an exceeding warm year.”
An analysis of the satellite data by John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, and his colleague, Roy Spencer, also found that 2015 was just the third warmest year on record - behind 1998 and 2010.
But Christy noted that the satellite data is a more accurate way to measure not only global temperature, but also the Earth’s response to greenhouse gas emissions, which have been blamed for global warming.
“A crucial point is that the bulk atmospheric temperature as measured by satellites and balloons is a much better metric for measuring the response of the climate to extra greenhouse gasses,” Christy told CNSNews.com.
Despite record-high surface temperatures, satellite data shows that “2015 was not even close to the hottest year on record,” James Taylor, Heartland Institute senior fellow for environment and energy, pointed out in an oped in Forbes.
“This past year saw what is likely the most powerful El Nino during the satellite temperature record,” Taylor wrote.
“With a record El Nino, we should have experienced record high temperatures. Yet we didn’t…. Indeed, if a record strong El Nino cannot bring global temperatures back to the warmth of 1998, what can – and when will that be?” he asked.

Related: Study: Surface Temps Lower at 410 Weather Stations With 'Minimal Artificial Impact'

Related: German Scientist Accused NASA of 'Massive' Temperature

Related: Sierra Club Says Satellite Data is Wrong: 'Our Planet is Cooking Up'

 

[iouae]

And now, I hope your next post will be about Evo.....

Cheers.

Just thinking aloud on the concept of irreducible complexity of life.

What is the least that one has to have to have life as we know it?

The simplest and first form of life would have to be a plant to photosynthesise or chemosynthesise.
Presumably, first life would be aquatic, unicellular and microscopic.

An animal cell might be simpler, but what would it eat? It is simpler having no cell wall, and no apparatus for making food. But we need to start with an autotroph.

Cyanobacteria are the simplest which fit this bill being prokaryotic and not having the full complement of cell organelles.

But even bacteria are too complicated. So let's think simpler still.

The simplest life would have to have a membrane on the outside to define it, and to keep what sustains life in, and what harms life out.
The simplest cell membranes today all consist of two layers of lip-protein adding up to a protein-lipid-lipid-protein layer.
These require energy to transport substances actively into the cell.

We could go with a simpler fatty acid membrane which would passively allow substances into the cell under specific circumstances, but this would be very unlikely to go anywhere. And these could only exist in very specific locations such as around thermal vents. Around thermal vents, apparently fatty acids can form from hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. But having a passive membrane will not get us very far. http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html

Life defies the second law of thermodynamics, and to do so it needs a source of energy to go from less organised to more organised. We need a source of energy within the cell.

Currently, most life is powered by ATP. In most cells the simplest way to get energy (ATP) is through glycolysis which occurs in the cytoplasm. ATP is more efficiently produced in the mitochondria. And evolutionists speculate that bacteria evolved into mitochondria, when eukaryotic proto-cells fused with with bacteria. Mitochondria still have the DNA left over from their bacterial ancestry, according to evolution. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-06/993493803.Cb.r.html

But there may be an even simpler form of energy - proton power. This drives the flagellae of some bacteria. Proton power actually is at the basis of ATP formation in mitochondria. Protons are actively pumped across the inner folded membrane inside the mitochondrion to charge or discharge the energy in ATP.

Next we come to the DNA-protein argument which is a chicken-egg one. You need the one to make the other. Some speculate that early life was RNA based but an RNA world goes nowhere apparently. http://www.d.umn.edu/~pschoff/documents/OrgelRNAWorld.pdf

The making of proteins by DNA takes energy. Once proteins are made, these can be incorporated into the cell membrane where they can start taking in substances actively.

Chemosynthesis, where bacteria live off chemicals like methane or sulphur, would be the simplest source of energy. With a membrane selectively taking in chemicals, this could presumably occur.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Is there any wonder that the United Methodist Church would prohibit the teaching of Intelligent Design? Really?

Dear Interplanner,

Thanks for posting. It's good to have your feedback. Do they realize that it means God created everything? Intelligent Design means God. No, they'd rather believe it all came to be by itself. It looks like God combined Hydrogen and Helium, and Sulfur to create the Sun. It's dang hot there. But I have heard that lightning is even hotter than the Sun. It is like 5 or 8 times hotter. Well, I hope this helps. I don't want to answer a post for somebody else.

Thank You From God And Me!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar: :singer:

 

[noguru]

What do debates with YEC engineers bring to science? Their only use is to generate publicity and misleading selective quotes for the YEC publicity drive. I can see why YEC types want to hold such debates, often with terribly restrictive 'rules' demanded at the last minute when a withdrawal by the scientist will look bad, but I don't see why most scientists would join in.

If the YEC campaigns want real scientists involved they should move their claims closer to scientific reality.

:rotfl:

I am not laughing at the logic of your point, just the absurdity of the expectation.

 

[Yorzhik]

Can I pin you down to <10,000 years now and quote this in future? Or perhaps you are suggesting that most YECs have got it wrong by a factor of say 10?

Yes, you can pin me down on less than 10K years.

Either way I don't see any concordance with more scientific estimates.

No. Scientific estimates say the earth is 10K years or less. Consensus estimates put the age out to billions of years.

If we throw away common descent for a while can I also now pin you down to a miraculous creation or will you give us your long awaited naturalistic scientific alternative?

First, we cannot throw away common descent because science, which are natural explanations, say quite clearly that mutation+NS did not happen. It's positive science we know, not incredulity, and it is completely separate from any supernatural explanation. So you first have to come up with a natural explanation for common descent that doesn't include mutation+NS before we can believe in common descent, because as far as I know, consensus is married to the idea that common descent happened via mutation+NS.

Second, my belief in a miraculous creation has no bearing on the scientific evidence that mutation+NS is wrong.




However if I were you I'd probably want to get my Nobel Prize in the bag before I did that.[/QUOTE]

 

[alwight]

Yes, you can pin me down on less than 10K years.


No. Scientific estimates say the earth is 10K years or less. Consensus estimates put the age out to billions of years.


First, we cannot throw away common descent because science, which are natural explanations, say quite clearly that mutation+NS did not happen. It's positive science we know, not incredulity, and it is completely separate from any supernatural explanation. So you first have to come up with a natural explanation for common descent that doesn't include mutation+NS before we can believe in common descent, because as far as I know, consensus is married to the idea that common descent happened via mutation+NS.

Second, my belief in a miraculous creation has no bearing on the scientific evidence that mutation+NS is wrong.

I think I'll just wait to see for a while if others want to comment here before I do. I may need to regain my composure...

 

[DavisBJ]

Why are you citing a source that by your own criterion is anti-science?

I am going to have to disagree with you on some aspects of this reply. First, as 6days shows, creationists are pro-science, as long as the science conforms with their narrow view of how Genesis is to be understood. Case in point is the article at AIG that is linked to in 6days’ post you object to. The article is by a creationist who has an unusually good understanding of some concepts in General Relativity. The article is technical enough that I think very few creationists (and few non-creationists) take the time to digest it deeply enough to evaluate the basic concepts it develops. A quick search on the net showed a lot of superficial (and wrong) critiques of the article.

I don’t see any fatal flaws in its treatment of relativity, but it does rely on making assumptions that almost no one else that I have seen makes. Even though from a mathematical viewpoint it may not be wrong, the unique assumptions it makes leads to other conclusions that most astrophysicists disagree with.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm heartbroken!

Dearest Michael, no one is forcing you to do something against your will. This video is meant for everyone else just as much as it is meant for you.

Here's a tip: you can start watching and if you don't like what you see or you feel threatened - just stop and hide under the blanket. It's OK.

Dear TheDuke,

There is no way I am going to listen to an atheistic video for over two hours. I'd rather watch home movies with alwight or Hedshaker!! That would be more fun to me!! Nice try though!

Best Wishes,

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :guitar: :singer:

 

[6days]

I think I'll just wait to see for a while if others want to comment here before I do.

Yes... Good comments from Yorzick!

 

[6days]

Is there any wonder that the United Methodist Church would prohibit the teaching of Intelligent Design? Really?

Its no wonder at all for a church that has lost its way.