Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
70 online now:
jar (1 member, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,105 Year: 4,853/23,288 Month: 1,758/1,286 Week: 72/353 Day: 19/53 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 106 of 1352 (804468)
04-10-2017 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
04-10-2017 12:08 AM


Re: antibiotic resistance
In your zeal to make false accusations you fail to note that antibiotic resistance is caused by mutations and spread by natural selection. I really do not seee how anyone can honestly object to callin it evolution because it so obviously is.

quote:

But the question is whether the change is rightly called evolution. In this case usually what happens is that some function in some of the bacteria that was receptive to the antibiotic isn't present in the small group of survivors and the absence of that function gets passed on as the population grows -- it can't absorb the poison so it survives and proliferates

That is not true, typically the mutation causes a reduction in functionality - making an enzyme, for example, less effective (which is hardly surprising - adapting a system to a new constraint without losing some function is hardly easy). Subsequent mutations often restore a lot of that functionality, while retaining resistance.

quote:

It's certainly not anything like what the theory of evolution predicts, which is something new in the DNA that causes the beneficial change. New "information." So the bacteria lose some function that made them susceptible to an antibiotic, that's hardly what is meant by Evolution but it's called evolution.

The mutation that provides resistance can certainly be called "new information" - and it certainly is beneficial - dying early is not a good outcome for any living thing. Quite frankly if the only objection is that it fails to meet some ill-defined Creationist criterion concocted only for the purpose of denying evolution you don't have a case. The later mutations that restore functionality are unambiguously beneficial even by creationist standards.

Antibiotic resistance is a clear example of evolution - it is limited, of course, but what else would you expect of something that can be demonstrated in a simple laboratory experiment ? And it is quite a dangerous threat to us, which we really ought to be doing more to control.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 12:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 12:35 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 107 of 1352 (804469)
04-10-2017 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
04-10-2017 12:30 AM


Re: antibiotic resistance
All that changes in what I said is that it gives the cause of the loss of function as a mutation. Loss of function is the opposite of new information. It is exactly what we would expect of mutations though, of course, destructive rather than productive. This is not what we are led to expect of evolution, however. All change is not evolution.

Besides that you have the usual definitional problem that plagues evolutionism. The built-in changes called "microevolution" in fact account for ALL observed changes. The ToE is pure conjecture, never demonstrated, and can't be demonstrated.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2017 12:30 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2017 12:59 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Pressie, posted 04-10-2017 7:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 108 of 1352 (804471)
04-10-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
04-10-2017 12:20 AM


I'll say it again: this is false. Creationists are not anti-science. Creationists object to evolutionary and Old Earth claims and that's all.

But in framing these objections you manage to be wrong about pretty much everything else from the second law of thermodynamics to the behavior of comets to the deposition of sediment to the appearance of the fossil record to information theory to nuclear decay to the nature of the scientific method itself. What aspect of science have creationists not been wrong about in pursuit of their chosen errors?

Genesis is presented as historical fact. What then?

Ooh, I know! Then we ask if it is consistent with the evidence, realize that it isn't, and consign it to the dustbin of history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 12:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 109 of 1352 (804472)
04-10-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
04-10-2017 12:35 AM


Re: antibiotic resistance
quote:

All that changes in what I said is that it gives the cause of the loss of function as a mutation. Loss of function is the opposite of new information

Reduced function is a side-effect of the antibiotic resistance. If you want to argue that it doesn't count as new information you have to take that into account, as well as coming up with a version of "information" that is actually relevant.

quote:

It is exactly what we would expect of mutations though, of course, destructive rather than productive. This is not what we are led to expect of evolution, however. All change is not evolution

I understand that talking about the major benefit would undermine your point but that is hardly a good reason for pretending that it does not exist. The antibiotic resistance is an overwhelming benefit for the bacteria.

quote:

Besides that you have the usual definitional problem that plagues evolutionism.

Creationist playing definition games (and it is always creationists) is hardly a problem for evolution.

quote:

The built-in changes called "microevolution" in fact account for ALL observed changes.

A claim disproven by antibiotic resistance.

quote:

The ToE is pure conjecture, never demonstrated, and can't be demonstrated.

It is certainly not pure conjecture and hasn't been for over a hundred years. Catch up with the 19th century some time. And you never demonstrate the entirety of a large theory (and how would you demonstrate a theory which often deals with timescales greater than a human lifetime anyway ?)

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 12:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 110 of 1352 (804473)
04-10-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
04-10-2017 12:20 AM


Creationists object to evolutionary and Old Earth claims and that's all. And because the Bible IS God's truth we have come to see that those are false science.

You object for religious reasons, but have no evidence to show that those fields of science are incorrect. You are operating on faith, while rejecting evidence.

That is the exact opposite of science!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 12:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 1:05 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 111 of 1352 (804474)
04-10-2017 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
04-10-2017 12:20 AM


quote:

I'll say it again: this is false. Creationists are not anti-science. Creationists object to evolutionary and Old Earth claims and that's all.

In other words it is true - Even before we consider the fact that you have used generally anti-scientific arguments.

quote:

And because the Bible IS God's truth we have come to see that those are false science.

In other words you follow a cult that leads you into falsehood. Too bad for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 12:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 112 of 1352 (804475)
04-10-2017 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
04-10-2017 12:59 AM


I was trying to get you to come out of your box long enough to consider that IF the Bible IS true then what choice does a person have but to start with what it says in constructing a scientific account of anything it addresses? Instead of sticking to your formula about "religion" which keeps you in your box, what would happen if you tried just a teensy bit to see things as we see them? If the Bible is true, as we believe it is, then you have to start there. You will immediately see that it calls certain things you believe into question. If it's TRUE. See?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 04-10-2017 12:59 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 1:12 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2017 1:49 AM Faith has responded
 Message 115 by jar, posted 04-10-2017 7:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 113 of 1352 (804476)
04-10-2017 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
04-10-2017 1:05 AM


I was trying to get you to come out of your box long enough to consider that IF the Bible IS true then what choice does a person have but to start with what it says in constructing a scientific account of anything it addresses?

If it was true then that would not be necessary.

If there really is an elephant in the room, then we wouldn't have to first assume that there is an elephant in the room, and then fudge and reinterpret and deny all the evidence in the light of that assumption. We could just look in the room without prejudice or preconceptions and see the elephant.

(And if by some chance there was not an elephant in the room, then the same method would tell us that too.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 1:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 1352 (804477)
04-10-2017 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
04-10-2017 1:05 AM


quote:

I was trying to get you to come out of your box long enough to consider that IF the Bible IS true then what choice does a person have but to start with what it says in constructing a scientific account of anything it addresses?

If they were truly constructing a scientific account they would have no choice but to set the Bible aside and try not to let their belief bias their conclusions. Science always starts with the observable evidence.

And let me point out that there is a world of difference between believing the Bible and believing a particular view of and (to be very generous) interpretation of the Bible. Your ideas are quite definitely the latter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 1:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 7:26 AM PaulK has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32355
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 115 of 1352 (804481)
04-10-2017 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
04-10-2017 1:05 AM


the true story of the flood is that it never happened.
Faith writes:

I was trying to get you to come out of your box long enough to consider that IF the Bible IS true then what choice does a person have but to start with what it says in constructing a scientific account of anything it addresses? Instead of sticking to your formula about "religion" which keeps you in your box, what would happen if you tried just a teensy bit to see things as we see them? If the Bible is true, as we believe it is, then you have to start there. You will immediately see that it calls certain things you believe into question. If it's TRUE. See?

But Faith, almost everyone (Christians at least) did start with the concept that the Bible is true.

But that is simply where people start.

After that people actually read the Bible and noticed that it is filled with contradictions and fallacies. Next the honest people looked at reality and realized that what is claimed in the Bible is refuted by what God actually wrote, the record in the rocks and living things.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 1:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 35110
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 1352 (804482)
04-10-2017 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
04-10-2017 1:49 AM


If they were truly constructing a scientific account they would have no choice but to set the Bible aside and try not to let their belief bias their conclusions. Science always starts with the observable evidence.

You are simply missing the whole point. We KNOW that God's word is true, so that is where we MUST start. You don't put aside something you know is the truth, it's exactly where you have to start. There isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that it's the truth as revealed by the God who made the universe; I'd be an idiot to put it aside to start with the observations of my own fallen mind.

What this debate is about for Bible-inerrancy creationists is trying to prove it from the observations.

And let me point out that there is a world of difference between believing the Bible and believing a particular view of and (to be very generous) interpretation of the Bible. Your ideas are quite definitely the latter.

Uh huh, well we've come to a very strange situation where the standard historical Protestant view of the Bible is treated as just one of many acceptable views, but that's entirely irrelevant to the point anyway. My views certainly represent the majority of creationists and Creationist ministries who affirm Bible inerrancy, and what I've said above is true for how we have to go about science with the premises we happen to have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2017 1:49 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2017 7:54 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 10:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 117 of 1352 (804484)
04-10-2017 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
04-10-2017 12:35 AM


Re: antibiotic resistance
This one is funny.

Faith writes:

All that changes in what I said is that it gives the cause of the loss of function as a mutation. Loss of function is the opposite of new information. It is exactly what we would expect of mutations though, of course, destructive rather than productive. This is not what we are led to expect of evolution, however. All change is not evolution.
Besides that you have the usual definitional problem that plagues evolutionism. The built-in changes called "microevolution" in fact account for ALL observed changes. The ToE is pure conjecture, never demonstrated, and can't be demonstrated.

Yeah, as if any forms of species have ever been demonstrated to be poofed into existence...

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 12:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(5)
Message 118 of 1352 (804485)
04-10-2017 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
04-10-2017 7:26 AM


quote:

You are simply missing the whole point

I don't think that pointing out how science is meant to work misses the point at all.

quote:

We KNOW that God's word is true, so that is where we MUST start. You don't put aside something you know is the truth, it's exactly where you have to start.

But to do a scientific investigation you have to set that "knowledge" aside. And why wouldn't you ? If you really believed it you would have every expectation that you would be able to confirm it

quote:

There isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that it's the truth as revealed by the God who made the universe; I'd be an idiot to put it aside to start with the observations of my own fallen mind.

In other words you trust a belief held by your "fallen mind" so much that you daren't put it to the test. Do try to think about what you are saying, especially when you are talking about a view of the Bible that is hardly supported by the Bible itself.

quote:

Uh huh, well we've come to a very strange situation where the standard historical Protestant view of the Bible is treated as just one of many acceptable views, but that's entirely irrelevant to the point anyway.

If you aren't able to enforce conformity with your views why would you expect other people to automatically follow them ? Especially given the rather obvious problems.

quote:

My views certainly represent the majority of creationists and Creationist ministries who affirm Bible inerrancy, and what I've said above is true for how we have to go about science with the premises we happen to have.

Which only means that your religion forbids you to scientifically investigate anything that might contradict your preferred interpreting of the Bible. Pointing that out is hardly missing the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 7:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 119 of 1352 (804486)
04-10-2017 8:36 AM


David jay Unsuspended
I've unsuspended Davidjay.

This thread is now in the Bible Study forum, which seems appropriate given that Davidjay has only Biblical and historical numerological arguments. If someone wants to discuss the creationist scientific evidence for the flood they will have to propose a new thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32355
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 120 of 1352 (804487)
04-10-2017 9:19 AM


The True Story of the Biblical Flood.
Of course the Bible doesn't have just one Flood myth but rather two mutually exclusive and contradictory flood myths. If one was true (and of course neither is true) then the other must be false. Therefore based solely on what is written in the Bible, at least one of the myths must be false.

Since both stories are contradictory it is necessary to look outside the Bible to try to determine which of the myths might be true. Unfortunately when that is done all of the evidence shows that neither of the myths just as with the two Creation myths, are true.

Both the actual words of the Bible and reality show that the Bible contains falsehoods.

Thank God!


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020