If God created...

[6days]

...the first part is your interpretation in which you add the words 'natural selection

Wrong again Stuu. Nazi propoganda "We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection...Watch

https://youtu.be/LiO_c5-6_Hw

 

[6days]

I think you could equally claim (equally inappropriately) that proponents of the use of the electric chair were inspired by the language of Alessandro Volta.

Haha... Well, Volta didn't foster a false belief system that inspired genocide.

 

[Interplanner]

mass murder is not a mechanism of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. How could it be?

By the frontispiece of the originals of OS and p ___ of the text. In the 1930s there were still several groups and even MPs in Britain who were ready to join Germany rather than fight.

 

[Interplanner]

Today's study from cataclysmic scientists was on the 2004 tsunami. A piece of the floor the size of California moved 6 ft; the release of energy was 100 Hiroshimas. Genesis cataclysmic scientists believe that the cataclysm was worldwide, and involved up to 10,000 ft vertical movement, a recent example of which is in S. Africa. The Genesis cataclysm generated all the sedimentary slurry, and either Dr. Austin or Schnelling said today it was a "sedimentary slurry event."

Some day I hope people will understand all the jagged rock, broken island photographs they adore: they are all cataclysm evidence; they are all what was left after the barrage of slurry blasted all around the place. The rocks did not 'grow/accumulate' that way...

 

[Stuu]

Athiests don't usually ridicule Santa

Indeed. Of course the usual issue for any adult is whether the fact that Santa is fictional should be broken to children. And the same is true with atheists and believers in gods. But not here on ToL, the atheists are very happy to share that knowledge with the children, er I mean the deluded, maybe I should rephrase that, the believers in fiction. Hmmm.

The other thing is that while Santa is a fictional character, its mythology isn't anywhere as nasty as most god belief fiction.

aliens, multiverse, Startrek etc. Is it because they know those things aren't real, and there is no evidence. (Some atheists even believe in some of those things)

Yes I could name several atheists who are ardent believers in Star Trek. That seems to go with the territory for some of them. Unlike the god nonsense, there is a possibility that the multiverse is real. But as you say, there is no empirical evidence for it so it must remain a religion.

What Crow does is suggest a POSSIBLE mechanism to try make the data fit his beliefs. Crow suggests an unrealistic model of "quasi-truncation"... essentially splitting hairs with truncation, saying the truncation model is not realistic.
*You likely did not notice, but he admits we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors.
*You might have also missed that he says things such as...
"the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious"
or
" I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem"

Yes. But I think he is out of date. It is quite an old paper in a quickly developing area of investigation.

Crow was discussing humans, not embyos or zygotes.

He should have been discussing all three, because it is relevant I think. The embryonic process is a first testing ground for the viability of mutations.

But in any case you might not understand what the words 'extroplate' and 'data' mean. The fossils themselves are the data. They are not "non-existent". Extrapolation happens when you observe data and ruminate what happened over vast past time periods, or what might happen over future time periods.

I think you might be the one that does not understand 'extrapolation'. I recommend looking up how that word is used in science.

Stuu: And what precise difference (genetic sharing / mutation rate between bacteria and human) are you meaning to explain by that?

Several methods that are different such as horizontal Gene transfer and reproduction by binary fission.

And now for the explanation...?

That is a great example of the 'wild extrapations' we talked about. The data is humans have a range of morphological differences. Extrapolating it over millions of years is what has often lead to false conclusions, as it did with Neandertals.

You are still committing the logical fallacy of composition. You are asserting that because some adaptations take only a short period of time, that all adaptations take short periods of time. I gave you two very precise examples of hair colour changes versus skull morphological changes. I can cite the evidence for those timescales if you want. Otherwise you will need to be much more specific and less logically fallacious if you want to be credible on this point.

Speaking of their beaks, the growth seems controlled by a genetic switch. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...t-their-beaks/ That almost seems like a design feature to help them survive changing environments.

Natural selection certainly produces the illusion of design. Although, as we have discussed, it often has the appearance of shoddy engineering.

Anyways... speciation can and does happen rapidly. Finches can be observed 'speciating'. I can give you links if you wish.

Well it is encouraging to see a creationist describing processes of evolution, but once again you need to say whether you are talking about finch beaks, which are a relatively trivial adaptation, or the whole bird-full of adaptations, which is more complicated and covers a longer timeframe.

HA HA... you should have read the article. It says "The evidence for an evolutionary change SURPRISED me,” said Stuart. “The pace at which the change was happening SURPRISED me even more"

Well, there you go. What is that doing in a peer-reviewed scientific paper?

Stuu: So why is there extinction then?

Mutations...selection....drift...lack of genetic variation...changing environments.

Well indeed, I couldn't agree more, especially with the lack of variation and changing environment bits.
But why are there extinctions according to your fantasy of Calvanist genetics? Shouldn't you add poor design to that list?

Yeah... "MAYBE" this and MAYBE that.

Alright then, almost certainly natural selection has found an immune-related use for the tissue, and it may retain an aspect of bacterial storage, without being the same function as in ancestral species.

Evolutionism involves the non falsifiable belief organs can become vestigial.... useless or, diminished or take on new purpose, due to common ancestry...MAYBE.

It's not non-falsifiable. All you have to do to falsify the claim is to demonstrate that the organ actually retains the full function that has been claimed to have been partly or completely lost.

Evolutionists once used the useless appendix as a 'proof' of common anceatry. Science proved that belef was wrong...our appendix has function.

But it is still vestigial by definition.

My favourite example of vestigiality is the plantaris muscle which runs down the back of the lower leg. It is very important for tree-dwelling primates in the grasping of tree branches but has lost almost all of its function in humans.

But, the creationist might claim, it does have the same function right? Who does the befuddled evolutionist think he is to claim that it has no useful function? Well, about 10% of humans don't even have a plantaris muscle. So it is indeed vestigial and its absence is spreading in the population. It is clear evidence that our distant ancestors were tree-dwellers.

Not sure of the original design, since we now have several thousand years of mutations. But, you can easily find articles declaring our bacteria is not vestigial, but a safe house for bacteria that seems most effective in children.

Remember, vestigiality is not a case of a structure having no function, it is when the structure does not retain the original function. The immune system is so wide-ranging that it is difficult to make a good case that the appendix has always been about that. But it does seem to act as a storehouse for bacteria that can repopulate the gut after disease.

The original function, that of a caecum in an ancestor species was subtly but importantly different: it stored materials and bacterial needed specifically for digesting cellulose in a high-plant diet. So that makes the appendix vestigial, again by definition.

So we agree? Evolutionists were wrong to declare it junk.

It would be wrong to call regulatory genes 'junk'. It would not be wrong to call large stretches of DNA 'junk DNA', as I explained.

Our eyes, eagles eyes (etc) have an inverted design that has been compared to fibre optic technology and is superior to the verted design in an octopus.

Has been compared to, eh? Superior in what way, exactly?

(Many octopus varieties are colorblind, and they most likely all have a much slower response time).

That point is not relevant to the orientation of the wiring. I did mention the inferior lens in octopi, you will recall This is not about octopus eyes in general, the claim is specific to the structure of the retina.

Finally we seem to almost agree on something! As evolutionary biologist Lyn Margulis said "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create.".

Yup. But natural selection can give the illusion of design, albeit the kind of design that rummages around in the shed and finds some bits of stuff that will make do as a makeshift solution.

I think the further interesting point about this, and also one we might agree on, is that so-called Theistic Evolution is utter rot. Why would a god choose such a phenomenally wasteful process as evolution by natural selection if it had humans in mind all the time? There is no guarantee that humans would appear at all. I'm sure you have no question in your mind about how humans got an immortal soul, and I'm equally clear that that concept is nonsense, but when did the Catholic church think their god specially injected a soul into a previously soul-free species of ancestor, and which ancestor was it??

Lynn Margulis is probably most famous for explaining how the mitochondria in our cells, the power stations of the cell, were originally free-living organisms that formed a symbiotic relationship by becoming housed in monocellular animals.

Your argument is another 'god of gaps' claim. (I don't understand the design, therefore evolution did it). Evolutionists of the past made the same 'god of gaps' argument about many of our organs... until science proved them wrong.

Well you can't articulate the design, can you. How did your god build a genome from dirt as described in Genesis?

For example evolutionists claimed our eye was a shoddy design...which you still seem to believe.

I don't believe the eye is a shoddy design. It carries the illusion of shoddy design.

Science progressed... "The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy" Opthamologist G.Marshal.

Your cited page is a brilliant set of excuses for a god that is a poor engineer. The god could do anything it wanted, right? Including redesigning the laws of physics just to make eye design appear much more elegant, or perfect even. But the whole picture is one of many compromises, each an attempt at improving some other deficit, exactly what you would expect of natural selection finding any old bits of stuff to make a ramshackle fitting that just does the job, enough of the time to get by.

Marshal's most amusing argument is that because the iris is poorly designed, it doesn't matter that the retina is badly designed.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Wrong again Stuu. Nazi propoganda "We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection...Watch

https://youtu.be/LiO_c5-6_Hw

You are welcome to have the point. I'm not going to defend Hitler's propaganda minister against my own claim that he was actually promoting Social Darwinism, whatever justification he imagined evolution by natural selection gave him.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Haha... Well, Volta didn't foster a false belief system that inspired genocide.

Indeed, my point entirely. But crackpots could claim inspiration from Volta with exactly the same validity as some claim was taken from Darwin, ie no validity in either case.

And don't forget all that inspiration Hitler took from Catholicism...

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?

Easy.

He didn't.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Stuu]

mass murder is not a mechanism of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. How could it be?

By the frontispiece of the originals of OS and p ___ of the text. In the 1930s there were still several groups and even MPs in Britain who were ready to join Germany rather than fight.

Not sure how you have answered my original question there.

What is OS and p ___ of the text ?

Stuart

 

[Lon]

If the age of the earth was established as 500 million years old, then a claim of life from 3.2 billion years ago would be disproved.

Stuart

"If's" aren't science though. Granted, a consensus is helpful and so I don't mind such if we are going off what we 'think' rather than what we "know."

One of my favorite lines is from Dr. Leonard McCoy, Star Trek, The Voyage Home:

McCoy: [McCoy, masked and in surgical garb, passes an elderly woman groaning on a gurney in the hallway] What's the matter with you? Elderly patient: [weakly] Kidney
[pause]
Elderly patient: dialysis.
McCoy: [geniunely surprised] Dialysis?
[musing to himself]
McCoy: What is this, the Dark Ages?
[He turns back to the patient and hands her a large white pill]
McCoy: Here,
[pause]
McCoy: you swallow that, and if you have any more problems, just call me!
[He pats her cheek and leaves]

It is fiction, but the comparison to 'the Dark Ages' is appropriate from where we are compared to where we may eventually be. By comparison, as arrogant as we are, we have room for scientific improvement and only 'so much' room for arrogance. The doctor doing brain surgery for cancer, may very well be obsolete eventually. For now, he enjoys status 'at the top' as it were. Make sense?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age", then what is the "apparent age" of the earth and the universe?

Firstly, God did not create the universe with the deception implied by "appearance of age". Adam looked like a mature male within one second of his creation by God. To us, Adam would have looked older than the actual time of his creation, one second earlier. Of course, if you have a sound view of Scripture, you will also know that the earth he stood upon was but five days older than he, too.

So if I’m asked why does the universe look so old, I have to say it looks old because it bears testimony to the affects of sin. And testimony of the judgment of God. It bears the effects of the catastrophe of the flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. I would suggest to you that the world looks old because as Paul says in Romans chapter 8 it is groaning. And in its groaning it does look old. It gives us empirical evidence of the reality of sin.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

Firstly, God did not create the universe with the deception implied by "appearance of age". Adam looked like a mature male within one second of his creation by God. To us, Adam would have looked older than the actual time of his creation, one second earlier. Of course, if you have a sound view of Scripture, you will also know that the earth he stood upon was but five days older than he, too.

So if I’m asked why does the universe look so old, I have to say it looks old because it bears testimony to the affects of sin. And testimony of the judgment of God. It bears the effects of the catastrophe of the flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. I would suggest to you that the world looks old because as Paul says in Romans chapter 8 it is groaning. And in its groaning it does look old. It gives us empirical evidence of the reality of sin.

AMR

That's about as good an answer as is possible while allowing the question begging of OP to stand.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Stuu]

"If's" aren't science though. Granted, a consensus is helpful and so I don't mind such if we are going off what we 'think' rather than what we "know."

One of my favorite lines is from Dr. Leonard McCoy, Star Trek, The Voyage Home:

It is fiction, but the comparison to 'the Dark Ages' is appropriate from where we are compared to where we may eventually be. By comparison, as arrogant as we are, we have room for scientific improvement and only 'so much' room for arrogance. The doctor doing brain surgery for cancer, may very well be obsolete eventually. For now, he enjoys status 'at the top' as it were. Make sense?

No. I'll grant you that medicine will improve, but the age of the earth will not be significantly changed from 4.5 billion years.

Newton's laws were not disproved by Einsteinian relativity. Even though it is a radically different way of doing the maths, they still used Newtonian physics to go to the moon.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

So if I’m asked why does the universe look so old, I have to say it looks old because it bears testimony to the affects of sin. And testimony of the judgment of God. It bears the effects of the catastrophe of the flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. I would suggest to you that the world looks old because as Paul says in Romans chapter 8 it is groaning. And in its groaning it does look old. It gives us empirical evidence of the reality of sin.

AMR

So, to summarise, a list of things that prematurely age a universe:

1. The effects of sin;
2. Judgement by gods;
3. A flood (which affected the entire universe? that's far bolder than 6days or Stripe would ever be);

And an additional factor affecting the earth specifically:

4. Groaning.

Are you sure you don't want to add earthquakes and hurricanes brought on by homosexuality, or does that come under the general category of the effects of sin?

And there was I thinking that things look old because they are.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Things look old.

The only old thing is your inability to engage sensibly.


Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Jonahdog]

Firstly, God did not create the universe with the deception implied by "appearance of age". Adam looked like a mature male within one second of his creation by God. To us, Adam would have looked older than the actual time of his creation, one second earlier. Of course, if you have a sound view of Scripture, you will also know that the earth he stood upon was but five days older than he, too.

So if I’m asked why does the universe look so old, I have to say it looks old because it bears testimony to the affects of sin. And testimony of the judgment of God. It bears the effects of the catastrophe of the flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. I would suggest to you that the world looks old because as Paul says in Romans chapter 8 it is groaning. And in its groaning it does look old. It gives us empirical evidence of the reality of sin.

AMR

The universe looks so old due to the affects of sin. Painful, just painful.

 

[gcthomas]

You mean you don't like it when you are shown for what you are? :think: Three fingers pointing back. Always. Contemplate more, emote less. Physics is a fine degree. Don't overshoot it, for instance, in this thread. It is a 'how things work' and engineering type of degree. I aced my collegiate geology class. Such is the subject matter of this thread, no?

Who said I had a Physics degree? That was just your supposition. I have an Engineering degree. :idunno: I work as a physicist.

Unlike you, I have collegiate work in both :noway:

Supposition. I have postgraduate qualifications in Education and Computer Science, for what it is worth. I teach advanced physics and computer science in a college. Your level of knowledge about physics would be insufficient to start one of my courses, but I am happy to talk down to your level if you wish to continue the discussion.

lain: Notice this link is the first listed.

Start at "Why Were Meteorites Used?"
"The quoted age of Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research."
and
"The moon, as another extraterrestrial body that has not undergone plate tectonics and that has no atmosphere, provides quite precise age dates from the samples returned from the Apollo missions."

'cosmochemistry' has as much to do with 'cosmology' as a 'cosmonaut' does. Cosmochemistry is mostly concerned with solar system science. Not cosmology. The article is about geology. There is still no mention of 'cosmology' in the entire article, despite your claim. It is about geologists radiodating meteorites. Not cosmologists. Having 'cosmology' as one of the search terms doesn't validate your claim.

(Kudos for using Duck Duck Go though! Too many people stick with the megaCorp Google. :up: )

 

[Lon]

No. I'll grant you that medicine will improve, but the age of the earth will not be significantly changed from 4.5 billion years.

Newton's laws were not disproved by Einsteinian relativity. Even though it is a radically different way of doing the maths, they still used Newtonian physics to go to the moon.

Stuart

Quite a prediction! It has changed twice in my lifetime!

 

[Lon]

Who said I had a Physics degree? That was just your supposition. I have an Engineering degree. :idunno: I work as a physicist.



Supposition. I have postgraduate qualifications in Education and Computer Science, for what it is worth. I teach advanced physics and computer science in a college. Your level of knowledge about physics would be insufficient to start one of my courses, but I am happy to talk down to your level if you wish to continue the discussion.

Incorrect. It is simply and only a 'learning curve.' Nice try to one-up again, however. You have a lot of pride. I'm ever glad to let you know where you actually stand. It isn't nearly as high as you estimate.

'cosmochemistry' has as much to do with 'cosmology' as a 'cosmonaut' does. Cosmochemistry is mostly concerned with solar system science. Not cosmology. The article is about geology. There is still no mention of 'cosmology' in the entire article, despite your claim. It is about geologists radiodating meteorites. Not cosmologists. Having 'cosmology' as one of the search terms doesn't validate your claim.

lain: You are being ignorantly pedantic. Cosmology is about the universe and there are quotes regarding the matter in the article as to how cosmological concerns (meteorites) aid in determining the age of the earth. If you'd like, you can be specific with 'meteorology' otherwise let it go. There is no 'one-up-manship' however hard you try. It is just being petty and desperately trying to show some kind of superior academic prowess and you just look pathetic for the attempt. Just QUIT trying to be smarter than you are and trying to be smarter than everyone else and you'll do a lot better in these discussions. Nobody cares about my or your college degrees as much as they want to know what the material is about. Just 'discuss' intelligibly, the age of the earth and we'll never have banter like this again. :e4e:

(Kudos for using Duck Duck Go though! Too many people stick with the megaCorp Google. :up: )

We both agree on that point. When I started, it was because my computer laptop doesn't have enough memory to handle all the advertisement software and cookies Google produces. In the interim, I found I prefer less commercialization and popularity of its search features.

-Lon

 

[Stuu]

Quite a prediction! It has changed twice in my lifetime!

The first lead-lead isotope dating was done on meteorite samples in 1956, which gave 4.55 billion years. The current consensus from a range of different measurements is 4.54 billion years.

Stuart