Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
37 online now:
Britton, dwise1, Heathen, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,849 Year: 18,885/19,786 Month: 1,305/1,705 Week: 111/446 Day: 7/104 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution
Faith
Member
Posts: 33334
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 226 of 312 (325917)
06-24-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by DrJones*
06-24-2006 10:53 PM


Re: When did it happen.
Because he's rational and not an idiot.

And the variety is hardly lacking. Look around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by DrJones*, posted 06-24-2006 10:53 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by DrJones*, posted 06-24-2006 11:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33334
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 227 of 312 (325918)
06-24-2006 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jar
06-24-2006 11:08 PM


Re: Creo Scientists
Of course Christians and secularists work within the same science, as long as they reject the nonsense of Biblical Creationism and YECism.

Except that 50% of this thread has been hijacked to off topic purposes, I was making some headway showing that this is false, that the vast majority of practical science does not in any way challenge a YEC's beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 11:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 11:35 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 235 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 11:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 228 of 312 (325919)
06-24-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:02 PM


Re: Design, not descent
I wonder what Adam and Eve looked like. Every single human type came from them. Every skin color, every hair type, every size and shape from the pygmy to the Neanderthal to the giants of the Bible. Actually all that came from NOAH and his family. Wonder what HE looked like.

Okay, some questions.

When the alleged Fall happened were Adam and Eve the only humans?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:34 PM jar has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1957
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 229 of 312 (325921)
06-24-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:14 PM


"God" the slacker
And the variety is hardly lacking. Look around.

If there is so much variety then why do dogs, cats, humans and chimps (and all the other mammals) all have a four chambered heart? Why don't dog hearts have 3 chambers, cats 5, humans 16 and chimps 230? Why are design elements repeated throughout the various organisms?

Because he's rational and not an idiot

It sure looks like he lacks imagination and is a bit lazy, after all this supposedly all-powerful being created everything and then took a day off.

Edited by DrJones*, : changed subtitle


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 230 of 312 (325924)
06-24-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:02 PM


Re: Design, not descent
I don't know. It's the definition I've had in mind all along here. What makes it Kinds rather than evolution is that it has to do with BUILT-IN genetics with built-in limits for each Kind.

so it's an issue of potential.

(btw: you're still wrong. i think you'll find that birds are "birds of the air" and crocodiles are "beasts of the field." not only separate kinds, but created on different days.)

The enormous varieties of dogs alone ought to be an example of how much potential there is in one Kind, though, and that's a modern Kind -- The varieties of dogs before the Flood must have been astonishing.

all dogs are one species, canis familiaris. interesting trivia, i know. but it's why you can cross breed just about any two dog varieties within the realm of, ahem, physical possibility.

If there are birds in the dinosaur layers, fine, I heard there weren't any and that that was one reason for the idea they evolved from the reptiles.

nope. we know that birds evolved from reptiles because their homology to theropod dinosaurs, their genetic links to crocodiles, their remaining crocodilian homologies (especially the scale), and because we have a very large selection and range between more reptilian, dinosaurian forms, and modern birds. there's actually enough evidence to classify birds as a subgroup of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs as a subgroup of sauropsida, or "reptiles." oddly, in scientific circles, the evidence is SO good that birds are sauropsids that most people feel the term "reptile" is outdated.

it appears the fork happened in about the late jurassic, maybe a little before. both dinosaurs and birds continued past them co-existing during the entire cretaceous period, until the dinosaurs were killed off in the k/t event.

it's really quite fascinating. i can recommend a good book or two on the subject for you.

Feathered dinosaurs, fine. I haven't been keeping up. To my mind they can have all the feathers they want and even wings and still not necessarily be related to birds.

did you catch the distinction i made above? the difference between what we call "bird" and what we call "dinosaur" is made on stuff like the proportion of the maxillary and premaxila bones. we're talking stuff that *I* barely know the details of. and i suspect if i showed you with a diagram, you'd say "so what?" in other words, we have dinosaurs on one side of the line, and birds on the other. and the difference between the two is "micro" evolution.

maybe only 5% of the genome reflects the difference but it's a definitive difference nevertheless.

far, far, less. we share something like 50% of our dna with plants.

But yes, if the Kinds were originally as genetically rich as I think they were, then descent of some pretty widely diverging types is possible from one original.

again, how is this different than common descent?

I believe it very likely that ALL the cats that ever lived descended from one original cat Kind for instance.

if i were to use the example above as an analogy for the other example i was using, your "original cat kind" would include cats, hyenas, mongooses (mongeese?), seals, racoons, bears, walruses and dogs.

that's the degree of a shift we're talking about with crocodiles and birds. the group that encompasses them is one of the very basal groups in sauropsida.

I wonder what Adam and Eve looked like. Every single human type came from them. Every skin color, every hair type, every size and shape from the pygmy to the Neanderthal to the giants of the Bible. Actually all that came from NOAH and his family. Wonder what HE looked like.

well, i can tell you that one of noah's sons was semitic, and another black. :D


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:52 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33334
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 231 of 312 (325929)
06-24-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by nwr
06-24-2006 10:41 PM


that same old deception again
If God had not wanted this, he could have made the world different from what it is. You are taking the word (the written text) of fallible men, and making it more important that what we can see for ourselves as God's handiwork.

That's such a delusion, to think that relying on our own senses and intellect, "what we can see for ourselves," is anything but deception, when the written text was dictated by God Himself to save us from exactly that kind of conceit and deception. God does not contradict Himself. If He can create this universe, He can keep His word from corruption.

The truth is that God's word is good as gold, what He actually said through His prophets, and He's testing us all to see if we will believe our own senses that tell us that the world is the way it looks to you, or believe what He has explicitly told us in His word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by nwr, posted 06-24-2006 10:41 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by nwr, posted 06-24-2006 11:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 232 of 312 (325930)
06-24-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:09 PM


Re: When did it happen.
I already answered what you are asking.

ok, so you agree that genetics cannot prove descent, and this is a fundamental position of the yec-viewpoint? ie: that if we have a tree or genetic similarities, we cannot show that one organism gave rise to another?

First address what I said.

don't fight this too hard. i'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. i just want to make sure i understand the claim right, and the implication of that claim, before i run off and say something that will be a strawman, for lack of any better information.

And I have no idea what p.r.a.t.t. means

points refuted a thousand times. you're just full of old creationist gems today.

And I'd appreciate it if you think I'm contradicting myself to think again. Because so far you've been wrong every time and it's tedious having to correct you. Thanks.

quote:
faith writes:

...Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived are all perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable science...

arachnophilia writes:

...the question was, can you still do this without "macro" evolutionary relationships?

faith writes:

No.

thank for the straighforward answer. we can check the vast majority of paleontology off the list now, as a science that daily depends on the theory of evolution. i'll stop bothering you now.


did i misunderstand your answer? the question i asked was: can we reconstruct extinct speciments, and study their anatomy and physiology, and reconstruct how they would have lived, without the use of "macro" evolutionary relationships (in situations where there are no "micro" relationships available alive today)? you said "no."

i took that to mean "no."

was i wrong in assuming that "no" meant "no" ?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33334
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 233 of 312 (325931)
06-24-2006 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by jar
06-24-2006 11:18 PM


Re: Design, not descent
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 11:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 11:45 PM Faith has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 234 of 312 (325932)
06-24-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:17 PM


Re: Creo Scientists
Except that 50% of this thread has been hijacked to off topic purposes, I was making some headway showing that this is false, that the vast majority of practical science does not in any way challenge a YEC's beliefs.

well, um, we're having some problems with just WHAT the yec beliefs are. apparently, they're looking more and more like evolution by the post. it appears that in your attempt to rectify yec with practical science (and the evolution it requires) you are slowly removing any meaning whatsoever for the term "young earth creationism" as it applies to evolution. though, admittedly, not age of the earth.

of course evolution is not a challenge to yec beliefs if you believe in common ancestry, as you apparently do.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 235 of 312 (325933)
06-24-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:17 PM


On Christians
Just a word of Love for you.

Remember that both Arach and I are still Christians, with as great a faith in GOD and the Bible as you. The issue that divides us is not Christianity or belief in a common GOD or even the idea that this Universe is the creation of that GOD.

If you are approaching a crisis of Faith, if the volume of specific evidence that excludes YECism or the Flood, remember that the choice is not Christianity or Old Earth and Evolution. You do NOT have to abandon your faith, only those misconceptions that are holding you back.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 11:44 PM jar has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 236 of 312 (325936)
06-24-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by jar
06-24-2006 11:35 PM


Re: On Christians
Remember that both Arach and I are still Christians, with as great a faith in GOD and the Bible as you. The issue that divides us is not Christianity or belief in a common GOD or even the idea that this Universe is the creation of that GOD.

or, apparently even how god created things. faith appears to believe that god's creation is adaptable, along lines most everyone else would call "macro" evolution. and evidently, common design seems to be leading us further and further back, to common ancestry.

If you are approaching a crisis of Faith, if the volume of specific evidence that excludes YECism or the Flood, remember that the choice is not Christianity or Old Earth and Evolution. You do NOT have to abandon your faith, only those misconceptions that are holding you back.

yes, jar has brought this up in chat. it's starting to look like your faith may be jeopardy. please, please realize that there are other ways of approaching the bible, and not all of them involve forsaking christ. we are not trying to attack your faith in god, or your love of christ; only the miseducation.

if you need help with questions of faith, and i think i can speak for jar here, we'd both be more than willing to help, as a reassuring and christian shoulder. crises of faith are hard, and we're both quite familiar with them. i'm not too sure about jar, but i am a former fundamentalist myself, though not as involved as some.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 06-24-2006 11:35 PM jar has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 237 of 312 (325937)
06-24-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:32 PM


Re: that same old deception again
That's such a delusion, to think that relying on our own senses and intellect, "what we can see for ourselves," is anything but deception, when the written text was dictated by God Himself to save us from exactly that kind of conceit and deception.

If our own senses are so unreliable that we cannot see for ourselves, then we also cannot read for ourselves.

The idea that "the written text was dictated by God Himself" is silly. There is no evidence for this. There is no basis for this other than the dogma with which you have been indoctrinated.

When I was a young child, I looked at the sky. It appeared to be a domed ceiling that was luminescent during the day, and mostly dark at night (except for those faint twinkles). We now know better. We know realize that the childish view is naive, and that the sky is lit not by its own luminescence but by the scattered light from the sun.

Genesis I describes the naive view that I had as a young child, the idea of a luminescent domed ceiling above the earth. If Genesis I was "dictated by God Himself" then why did God dictate such naive nonsense? Was God so ignorant that He did not know better? Surely, that alone is sufficient evidence to show that the test was written by fallible men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 11:48 PM nwr has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 238 of 312 (325938)
06-24-2006 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
06-24-2006 11:34 PM


Re: Design, not descent
Jar asked:

When the alleged Fall happened were Adam and Eve the only humans?

to which Faith replied:

Yes.

Okay.

Do you agree that it was at the Fall when the changes in physics or genetics or all the other laws changed?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 06-24-2006 11:58 PM jar has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 239 of 312 (325939)
06-24-2006 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by nwr
06-24-2006 11:44 PM


Re: that same old deception again
lemme play devil's advocate for a second. or rather, god's advocate.

If Genesis I was "dictated by God Himself" then why did God dictate such naive nonsense? Was God so ignorant that He did not know better?

while a testament to the wonders of the universe given to ignorant and earth-bound ancient hebrews would be truly inspiring, why would god do such a thing, besides to prove himself? sure, he could have given us the encyclopedia galactica had he wanted -- but would the people he was giving it to understand it? would we understand it today?

abe: it also rather relies on the notion that bible is a science textbook, when clearly there are other more important things being said, and the cosmological context is background.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by nwr, posted 06-24-2006 11:44 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by nwr, posted 06-24-2006 11:53 PM arachnophilia has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33334
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 240 of 312 (325942)
06-24-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by arachnophilia
06-24-2006 11:24 PM


Re: Design, not descent
I don't know. It's the definition I've had in mind all along here. What makes it Kinds rather than evolution is that it has to do with BUILT-IN genetics with built-in limits for each Kind.
======
so it's an issue of potential.

Well, take any two animals and you'll see that in a few generations they don't look the same any more. And that's true to some extent even with highly overbred animals.

(btw: you're still wrong. i think you'll find that birds are "birds of the air" and crocodiles are "beasts of the field." not only separate kinds, but created on different days.)

We know there were flying reptiles, don't we, quite apart from archaeopteryx. Unless all the flying types are birds. Why does it matter? I'm not hung up on which is which Kind.

The enormous varieties of dogs alone ought to be an example of how much potential there is in one Kind, though, and that's a modern Kind -- The varieties of dogs before the Flood must have been astonishing.

all dogs are one species, canis familiaris. interesting trivia, i know. but it's why you can cross breed just about any two dog varieties within the realm of, ahem, physical possibility.

And even if they lose the capacity for interbreeding in my book they are still the same species. But the point is the VARIETY you can get from a single Kind.

If there are birds in the dinosaur layers, fine, I heard there weren't any and that that was one reason for the idea they evolved from the reptiles.

nope. we know that birds evolved from reptiles because their homology to theropod dinosaurs, their genetic links to crocodiles, their remaining crocodilian homologies (especially the scale), and because we have a very large selection and range between more reptilian, dinosaurian forms, and modern birds. there's actually enough evidence to classify birds as a subgroup of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs as a subgroup of sauropsida, or "reptiles." oddly, in scientific circles, the evidence is SO good that birds are sauropsids that most people feel the term "reptile" is outdated.

Oh brother. And all this accord with the Linnaean tree? Genetic similarities being called links, homologies of design being taken for descent. What a bunch of ...

it appears the fork happened in about the late jurassic, maybe a little before. both dinosaurs and birds continued past them co-existing during the entire cretaceous period, until the dinosaurs were killed off in the k/t event.

The fantasies you guys can concoct from a layer of dirt. As if time marked itself off in discrete layers of particular sediments with particular contents. How absurd.

it's really quite fascinating. i can recommend a good book or two on the subject for you.

I'm busy reading other things at the moment, thanks anyway.

Feathered dinosaurs, fine. I haven't been keeping up. To my mind they can have all the feathers they want and even wings and still not necessarily be related to birds.

did you catch the distinction i made above? the difference between what we call "bird" and what we call "dinosaur" is made on stuff like the proportion of the maxillary and premaxila bones.

I have to admit I don't pay close attention to such stuff. All it means is that there are similarities that I explain by design and you explain by descent. There is no evidence in such things, it's all just preferring to see it the one way or the other.

we're talking stuff that *I* barely know the details of. and i suspect if i showed you with a diagram, you'd say "so what?" in other words, we have dinosaurs on one side of the line, and birds on the other. and the difference between the two is "micro" evolution.

Huh? MICRO evolution has nothing to do with this. There is no relationship whatever.

maybe only 5% of the genome reflects the difference but it's a definitive difference nevertheless.

far, far, less. we share something like 50% of our dna with plants.

That's funny. Interesting. Shows just how meaningless the percentages are when it comes to the idea of descent.

But yes, if the Kinds were originally as genetically rich as I think they were, then descent of some pretty widely diverging types is possible from one original.

again, how is this different than common descent?

I don't see any similarity myself. Kinds are Kinds. They don't produce anything except varieties of the Kind.

I believe it very likely that ALL the cats that ever lived descended from one original cat Kind for instance.

if i were to use the example above as an analogy for the other example i was using, your "original cat kind" would include cats, hyenas, mongooses (mongeese?), seals, racoons, bears, walruses and dogs.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

that's the degree of a shift we're talking about with crocodiles and birds. the group that encompasses them is one of the very basal groups in sauropsida.

Huh? YOU are the one saying they are related, not I.

I wonder what Adam and Eve looked like. Every single human type came from them. Every skin color, every hair type, every size and shape from the pygmy to the Neanderthal to the giants of the Bible. Actually all that came from NOAH and his family. Wonder what HE looked like.

well, i can tell you that one of noah's sons was semitic, and another black.

Not necessarily. I think the black groups developed from Ham, and the European groups from Japheth and the Semitic groups from Shem, but the patriarchs didn't need to have all the characteristics of those who descended from them. All you need for that is geographically isolated gene pools, Shemites going one way, Hamites going another, etc., not a particular phenotypic original.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 06-24-2006 11:24 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019