|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
solid, too. to keep out the water.
Right. I'm wondering you you would do workaday meteorology on the Genesis 1 model. Edited by nwr, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm wondering you you would do workaday meteorology on the Genesis 1 model. uh, maybe. the whole circulation thing ain't so good. also, nasa's gotta be fake. nobody's ever been in orbit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's true, creationists have thought about what actually exists and understand it in relation to the Flood. A single floodplain is what you get from a local flood, not a flood that involves ocean currents and the dissolving of whole continents and disturbances of the sea floor.
Tell me exactly what the genetic evidence for a bottleneck 4500 years ago should look like. Be specific. Include genetic evidence for known recent bottlenecks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm wondering you you would do workaday meteorology on the Genesis 1 model. Exactly the way it is done now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, the universe isn't wrong, but the people who read it are wrong about some aspects of it.
It might help if you reviewed more of the thread. You are coming in in the middle of things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's true, creationists have thought about what actually exists and understand it in relation to the Flood. A single floodplain is what you get from a local flood, not a flood that involves ocean currents and the dissolving of whole continents and disturbances of the sea floor. pointless speculation and special pleading. a flood looks like a flood because there is no single current, or because the current is violent and multi-directional. this mixes things into a single strata, not multiple.
Tell me exactly what the genetic evidence for a bottleneck 4500 years ago should look like. Be specific. Include genetic evidence for known recent bottlenecks. being able to trace all mitochondrial dna of each "kind" to a single individual, within the last 6,000 years. there was a such a bottleneck in the human genome under discussion somewhat recently, "mitochondrial eve" showing that every female alive today is descended from a single individual. if the ark story is true, we should expect similar results in every "kind" of animal, all of which line up to the same general timeframe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4140 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
No, the universe isn't wrong, but the people who read it are wrong about some aspects of it.
so, scientists who are able to predict and learn from the universe and are able to do things with that knowlege are simply wrong because you say so?
It might help if you reviewed more of the thread. You are coming in in the middle of things.
i've read the thread, its the same recycled PRATTS and dodges and leaps of logic you always preform, when you can't produce anything to back up what you say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
This is exactly WHY God inspired His word, because people are such idiots they think what they think is the truth. So how do you "know", that is how do you tell which words are inspired?You rely on the authority of the church, on tradition, all these are human judgements. This book is included in the Bible as inspired and that book isn't. Humans made that decision. You are using your thinking and the thinking of other human beings to construct what you think the word of God is. And all the evidence you have are some copies of copies of scrolls that contain errors. I see no evidence of God in all of that. I see evidence of the human psychological propensity to belief, to dependence on authority and tradition. In the case of the YEC'ers they take it to the extreme of denying reality in order to live like 500 years of science never happened. That is your choice but it is not science and doesn't refute anything science has developed. The Bible is the inspired word of God in the exact same sense that the Vedas, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the teachings of Ramana are the inspired word of God, and that is because someone is willing to believe it is the case. There is no more evidence than that. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I agree. The description of the sky as a luminous domed ceiling above the earth is quite unambiguous. The description that the luminosity of the sky is independent of the sun is umambiguous. I'm talking about the events of the Flood and the Fall as the unambiguous messages. Other messages may be ambiguous. I read the domed ceiling as poetic imagery based simply on the way it looks. It's not meant to be scientific. It's not like giving all those specific details about a worldwide flood and a very specific vessel to float on it, clearly facts, something that could be directly contradicted as science now does. Or the details about the Fall. The light that preceded the creation of the sun was not necessasrily physical light, although it's not impossible for that to exist without a particular source, either, God being God, but no doubt heavenly or spiritual light. When you close your eyes hard in a dark room and press on your eyelids you see light without an external physical source? I know that's explainable but is it really understandable since there is no actual light source? But I don't mean that to be an explanation of the phenomenon you brought up, just an example of light without a source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why don't you read the damned thread? No, they are wrong where and ONLY where the Bible says so. And the point of the thread is that they are MOSTLY right according to the Bible. Or that WAS the topic until it got dragged off by one rogue admin and his accomplice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
So how do you "know", that is how do you tell which words are inspired? You rely on the authority of the church, on tradition, all these are human judgements. This book is included in the Bible as inspired and that book isn't. Humans made that decision. You are using your thinking and the thinking of other human beings to construct what you think the word of God is. And all the evidence you have are some copies of copies of scrolls that contain errors. god wrote the bible. we know this, because god tells us so. he told man what to say, how to write it, which books to include, how to translate it, etc. but only the version and interpretation i like. because that's the one god inspired, and no other. we know this because god tells us so. and we know god tells us so, because it's in the bible. and we know it's in the bible, because the pastor tells us so.
The Bible is the inspired word of God in the exact same sense that the Vedas, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the teachings of Ramana are the inspired word of God, and that is because someone is willing to believe it is the case. There is no more evidence than that. not to rag on the mormons much more, but it is my educated opinion that, for as many holes as there are in the bible, the bom is downright spurious in comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm talking about the events of the Flood and the Fall as the unambiguous messages. Other messages may be ambiguous. funny, there's a lot of debate about that fall thing around here... if it's so unambiguous, why do many christians disagree? and why do no jews believe in it?
I read the domed ceiling as poetic imagery based simply on the way it looks. It's not meant to be scientific. you know, this is the funny part. no one accepts the bible literally. not even you faith. to do so in modern times is downright ludicrous. even you agree -- the sky is NOT a solid dome over our heads. you say here that it's not meant to be scientific. how do you know that? and how do you know which parts are scientific, and which parts are "just poetic imagery?"
When you close your eyes hard in a dark room and press on your eyelids you see light without an external physical source? I know that's explainable but is it really understandable since there is no actual light source? But I don't mean that to be an explanation of the phenomenon you brought up, just an example of light without a source. that's a physiological thing, not real light. being a photographer, i work in pitch black quiet regularly. and let me tell you, it gets dark. i work with my eyes open, even though i can't see a damned thing. we don't even think about it much with our streetlights and electricity, but shut it all off for a while -- like the last few times we had a hurricane around here -- and it gets pitch black.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4140 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Why don't you read the damned thread? No, they are wrong where and ONLY where the Bible says so. And the point of the thread is that they are MOSTLY right according to the Bible. Or that WAS the topic until it got dragged off by one rogue admin and his accomplice.
yes i've read the damn thread, but its nothing new just more "my beliefs trump science, because i say so" which is fine,insulting to god and hard working people trying to further science, thats finebut if you claim that there is evidence in the world of a story written 3 thousand years ago, but most of it requires the redesign of physics and other sciences to work and theres no evidence of this eather, why would anyone accept this? many fields would disagree with your book, including enginerring, botony, even farmers would disagree with you, if ignoring people who know what they are talking about is what you want to do, fine but expect people to keep pointing out you are wrong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Tell me exactly what the genetic evidence for a bottleneck 4500 years ago should look like. Be specific. Include genetic evidence for known recent bottlenecks. Maybe it's because I should be in bed but I could have sworn you'd spent large parts of the last four pages of posts whining about this thread not being for specifics.
Include genetic evidence for known recent bottlenecks Since I'm a nice guy I'll point you at one before I head for bed - the Northern Elephant Seal. It hit a bottleneck around the 1890s (at one time thought to be extinct but eventually a population of around 20 to 100 was found) and subsequently recovered to around 175,000 by the year 2000. Here is a study of the sort you are looking for (search for "An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the Northern elephant seal population bottleneck" - it gives you a choice of links to PDF and HTML versions). I haven't had chance to check but I imagine with a bit of Googling you will find similar or better work for cheetas, golden hamsters and maybe both American and European bison. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Why don't you read the damned thread? No, they are wrong where and ONLY where the Bible says so. those nasa scientists they keep putting in orbit must be lying. because the bible says they're wrong about being able to get above the sky without hitting something solid. seems pretty unambiguous to me. i read the bible literally.
And the point of the thread is that they are MOSTLY right according to the Bible. Or that WAS the topic until it got dragged off by one rogue admin and his accomplice. it seems to me that your definition of "on topic" is "going my way." and "off topic" is "not going my way." buzsaw has this problem too: any refutation is off topic. you've argued that day-to-day science is not affected, without knowing the first damned thing about day-to-day science. you've hand-waved your way through the thread, reverting to childish antics and classic pratts. in the process, yo've redefined to the yec position to include something very, very similar to common ancestry -- the central tenet of evolution you reject.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024