Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's Place In Evolution
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 136 of 190 (605244)
02-17-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
02-17-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Speaking Of Myth
Speaking of myth, there is more here and now evidence for the Biblical myth than for the evolutionist myth, as depicted by your mythical map.
How does Noah explain the Horseshoe Atoll that's a little over a mile beneath my chair, Buz? It's 3000 feet thick in spots - did that much coral grow in a year?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2011 6:42 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 137 of 190 (605360)
02-18-2011 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
02-16-2011 12:46 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
How is this proof? Are you trying to show a contradiction between the Bible and itself? All the verses you just quoted are complementary pieces to the same story, not different versions of the same story. As for the verse saying ALL animals are to be wiped out, this clearly referring to the animals not placed on the ark. Also for the contradictions against science and genetics that you claim, the Bible doesn't refer to animals in terms of species, but "kinds" , "clean" and "unclean". The Bible doesn't even say specifically which animals were taken. Also what is meant by "kind" is not explained, so the genetic markings you refer to are not fully reliable. There is no way to make a direct comparison between "species" and "kinds". IOW, we simply do not have enough information. Until we know enough about genes and life to produce even a single cell, I wouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as solid proof.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 12:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 02-18-2011 7:16 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2011 9:05 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 02-18-2011 11:42 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 148 by frako, posted 02-19-2011 1:20 PM goldrush has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 138 of 190 (605361)
02-18-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Jon
02-16-2011 1:54 PM


Re: Argument from Incredulity
Ok fair enough. Even though these quotations do not represent the whole of my argument(s) they do represent the Wiki example/definition quite well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Jon, posted 02-16-2011 1:54 PM Jon has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 139 of 190 (605362)
02-18-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:05 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
goldrush writes:
How is this proof? Are you trying to show a contradiction between the Bible and itself? All the verses you just quoted are complementary pieces to the same story, not different versions of the same story. As for the verse saying ALL animals are to be wiped out, this clearly referring to the animals not placed on the ark. Also for the contradictions against science and genetics that you claim, the Bible doesn't refer to animals in terms of species, but "kinds" , "clean" and "unclean". The Bible doesn't even say specifically which land and air animals were taken What is meant by "kind" is not explained, so the genetic markings you refer to are not fully reliable. Until we know enough about genes and life to produce a single cell, I wouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as solid proof.
Bullshit.
We see genetic makers of bottleneck events, just none at the same point of time in all species. The contradictions in the Bible are of course irrelevant, I just used the different parts from each of the different stories to give the best possible chances to the Flood Myth.
The fact is that the bottleneck genetic marker is NOT there regardless of whether you use species or the utter nonsense idea of "kind".
The Biblical Flood is totally refuted. Period.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:05 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:27 PM jar has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 140 of 190 (605364)
02-18-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by jar
02-18-2011 7:16 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
If "bottlenecking" is in reference to species, then not knowing exactly what the Bible means by "kinds", and the animals preserved representing these "kinds" is going to render references to "species" as invalid proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 02-18-2011 7:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 02-18-2011 7:33 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2011 7:57 PM goldrush has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 141 of 190 (605365)
02-18-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
goldrush writes:
If "bottlenecking" is in reference to species, then not knowing exactly what the Bible means by "kinds", and the animals preserved representing these "kinds" is going to render references to "species" as invalid proof.
Bullshit.
The FACT is that if the Biblical Flood was true we MUST see the bottleneck signature in every critter living today; all of them.
I tried to pick the version of the fables that would be the most favorable to the Flood Myth, ...
quote:
If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.
... so that we would only need to see the bottleneck signature in the birds and land animals.
It doesn't matter whether we use the silly "kinds" crap or species, the signature has to be there.
It is not.
The Biblical Flood is totally refuted.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:27 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 142 of 190 (605366)
02-18-2011 7:39 PM


Goldrush, are you ever going to deal with the evidence I posted in Message 66, upthread?
That evidence completely refutes the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago. A lot of it is from my own archaeological research.
Or are you going to continue to try to ignore it?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 02-18-2011 7:56 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 149 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:11 PM Coyote has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 143 of 190 (605368)
02-18-2011 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coyote
02-18-2011 7:39 PM


Coyote writes:
Goldrush, are you ever going to deal with the evidence I posted in Message 66, upthread?
That evidence completely refutes the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago. A lot of it is from my own archaeological research.
Or are you going to continue to try to ignore it?
This is really important.
One of the really great things is that a whole bunch of unrelated lines of evidence refute the Biblical Flood.
  • The evidence you present
  • All of geological evidence
  • The fact that many societies continued right through the fictional flood.
  • The lack of flood damage within structures that would have existed before and after the fictional flood.
  • The existence of many haplotypes that existed before and after the fictional flood.
  • The lack of the genetic bottleneck markers.
Any one of them is sufficient to refute the Biblical Flood, but what we find is that many totally unrelated lines of evidence all, each individually and collectively, refute the story.
The Biblical Flood never happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 02-18-2011 7:39 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Coyote, posted 02-18-2011 8:09 PM jar has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 190 (605369)
02-18-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
If "bottlenecking" is in reference to species, then not knowing exactly what the Bible means by "kinds", and the animals preserved representing these "kinds" is going to render references to "species" as invalid proof.
No, hold on. If "kind" can include several species1 (as creationists usually claim) then we'd still see bottlenecking in the species --- if anything, more so. Each species within the kind would still have had only two ancestors (or seven for kosher species) a few thousand years ago. The fact that some of them had the same two ancestors would be neither here nor there as far as bottlenecking goes2.
1 The only way your get-out would work is if kinds were varieties, so that there were more "kinds" than species. And it would have to be a lot more to avoid a bottleneck. But since the whole point of the "kinds" concept is to get round the problem of space on the Ark, then if kinds are varieties you'd have defeated the original purpose of the concept.
2 Though this could be disproved by other techniques in genetic analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:27 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 145 of 190 (605370)
02-18-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by jar
02-18-2011 7:56 PM


That light at the end of the tunnel...
jar writes:
One of the really great things is that a whole bunch of unrelated lines of evidence refute the Biblical Flood.
  • The evidence you present
  • All of geological evidence
  • The fact that many societies continued right through the fictional flood.
  • The lack of flood damage within structures that would have existed before and after the fictional flood.
  • The existence of many haplotypes that existed before and after the fictional flood.
  • The lack of the genetic bottleneck markers.
Any one of them is sufficient to refute the Biblical Flood, but what we find is that many totally unrelated lines of evidence all, each individually and collectively, refute the story.
The Biblical Flood never happened.
Exactly.
It is not hard to refute the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago (I try to be very precise in my terminology on this).
It is so easy that even my archaeological research in a limited area of the western US has refuted the idea of a global flood at that time.
And of course my evidence just adds a little more to the body of evidence produced for the past 200 years from an ever-increasing range of professions.
But what amazes me is the grounds on which creationists attempt to refute this evidence, and what just staggers me is those creationists who try to ignore it completely.
That is so foreign to how things are done in science that it is incomprehensible.
To me that is akin to ignoring a freight train headed right at you and saying, after it has flattened you, "It didn't leave a scratch."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 02-18-2011 7:56 PM jar has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 190 (605379)
02-18-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:05 PM


Kinds II
The Bible doesn't even say specifically which animals were taken. Also what is meant by "kind" is not explained ...
The Bible says two of every kind (seven of clean kinds).
Now the meaning of kind is not explained, true, but it is illustrated.
The word "kind" ( מין ) as used in Genesis is also used in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, where the Bible refers to various kinds of black kites, ravens, hawks, herons, "great lizards" (distinct from the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon), locusts, bald locusts, beetles, grasshoppers, tortoises and vultures.
So, for example, we know that ravens cannot constitute a "kind", since there are distinct "kinds" of ravens.
This suggests that "kind" actually slices the animal kingdom fairly thin, since ravens are various species within the genus Corvus.
However, this is by-the-by. As I pointed out in my previous post on this subject, kinds can be as big as you like and the species within them would still show a genetic bottleneck.
... so the genetic markings you refer to are not fully reliable.
See my previous post on this subject.
Until we know enough about genes and life to produce even a single cell, I wouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as solid proof.
Why not? That's a complete non sequitur.
Would you listen to an attorney who tried that sort of argument in a paternity case? Or in a murder case? "Yes, DNA analysis apparently shows that the skin found under the victim's fingernails came from my client --- but we don't know enough about genes and life to produce even a single cell, so we shouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as proof".
The things we can't do don't even tend to discredit the things that we do know. And, I might add, it isn't lack of knowledge of life or DNA that stops us from building a cell from scratch, it's lack of technology. You can know all about a thing and lack the technology to make one. Would you say that we don't understand why stars shine until we can make a star?
To look at it another way --- suppose scientists did make a cell from scratch. Suppose they do it tomorrow. Would you then feel obliged to say: "Oh well then, geneticists must be right about the non-occurrence of the Flood"? Or would you be the first to say that the question of whether scientists can make cells and the question of whether the Flood occurred are completely unrelated?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:05 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 147 of 190 (605389)
02-18-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:05 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
goldrush writes:
The Bible doesn't even say specifically which animals were taken.
It says specifically that ravens and doves were on the ark. At the very least, there would have to be a genetic bottleneck for ravens and one for doves - and they would have to coincide in time. That's an experiment that creationists could do to pinpoint the time of the flood.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:05 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:16 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 148 of 190 (605420)
02-19-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by goldrush
02-18-2011 7:05 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
Until we know enough about genes and life to produce even a single cell, I wouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as solid proof.
'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists - BBC News
Well we did so now do you consider the DNA evidence as proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by goldrush, posted 02-18-2011 7:05 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by goldrush, posted 02-20-2011 6:13 PM frako has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 149 of 190 (605530)
02-20-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coyote
02-18-2011 7:39 PM


The reason I didn't deal with it is because it was based on radiocarbon dating which assumes too many unknowns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 02-18-2011 7:39 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 02-20-2011 6:16 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 02-20-2011 6:53 PM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 150 of 190 (605531)
02-20-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by frako
02-19-2011 1:20 PM


Re: Accurate knowledge?
I've actually read this before. Sorry, artificial life is not the same as the real thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by frako, posted 02-19-2011 1:20 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 7:26 PM goldrush has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024