The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Souron]

Souron -- The Bible does not contradict Big Bang theory that I am aware of. I think where a lot of people get hung on in the creation story is the word "day". I don't think that we are talking about a 24 hour period of time. But verse 20 in Genesis 1 is pretty specific that creatures were created after their kind. (I take that to mean "type"), and that pretty much eliminates macro-evolution to me.

But verses 11, 12, which describe the creation of plants come before the creation of stars and celestial bodies described in verse 16.

So clearly Big Bang theory is contrairy to the order of days in genisis.

 

[carlosMM]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

That right there is soft tissue from from a 65 million year old fossil. But there are serious problems with that because we know that it cannot be 65 million years old because soft tissue will only last a few thousand year under ideal conditions.

@carlos, I have given you a definition, now if you don't like then, tough.

CH, you have not given a definition. Please read the dictionary entry I provided to learn what a definition is. If you disagree with me on that, please explain how the text you c&ped does fulfill the definition of definition

Second, pelase PROVE how

soft tissue will only last a few thousand year under ideal conditions

. Generally, it doesn't last much longer, but you claim it NEVER does, so prove that!

 

[carlosMM]

It well past the stage of making headlines in non-technical papers, yes.

I've not really followed that particular issue closely, but AFAIK some of the more sensational claims, such as finding recognizable blood cells, have been shown to be wrong.

carlosMM probably knows better than me.

I heard Mary's talk at last years SVP,a nd later talked to her and her prep over lunch. They were extremely carefull never to say 'there are blood cells', though they do awefully look like blood cells. Mary plans to publich en dof this year a paper describing the technique in full detail, so that they can be reproduced world-wide.

FACT: there was pliable soft tissue found in a T. rex bone which in shape and size resembles certain tissues in recent birds to the point where one cannot tell which is which unless told. Some of that material appears to be part of the blood vessel walls, and some structures within the 'vessels' apper to have the shape of nucleated red blood cells.

None of Mary's claims has been refuted so far.

 

[carlosMM]

The common ancestor of any group? I guess that works but it still doesn't correspond to actual science.

That would mean he equates 'taxon' and 'species'
the common error of creationists

 

[carlosMM]

Souron -- The Bible does not contradict Big Bang theory that I am aware of. I think where a lot of people get hung on in the creation story is the word "day". I don't think that we are talking about a 24 hour period of time. But verse 20 in Genesis 1 is pretty specific that creatures were created after their kind. (I take that to mean "type"), and that pretty much eliminates macro-evolution to me.

Well, what then *is* a 'type'? Can you give examples or definitions? What two animals of a 'type' would Noah have to take TODAY if the 'experiemnt' was repeated?

But verses 11, 12, which describe the creation of plants come before the creation of stars and celestial bodies described in verse 16.

So clearly Big Bang theory is contrairy to the order of days in genisis.

Who tells you that the 'oder of days' is not a creation of the priests who dreamt up that particular version of the creation story? Personally, I think this is what happened:
The older (second!) creation story was sufficient to explain things to a people of goat herders. In the Babylonian captivity, though, these gaotherders came into contact wiht a scientifically far superior civlization, whose Gods allowed them, by means to scientific knowledge mixed with religion' to predict e.g. solar eclipses etc.
Awed, the goat herders converted to that superior(?) religion.

The priests now faced a problem: they could either change their stories to incorporate the 'new' data, thus start sounding unbelivable, or they could stick to the old faith and lose their influence.

Instead, they took middle ground: they KEPT the old staory, but added a SECOND, new one, which basically took the new data and showed how it had been THEIR God all along. This one, they placed before the older story.

This format of the two creation stories of two different ages explains well the format you find in Genesis, including the language differences. Also, you must have noted how one story if vague, while the other gives a detailed chain of events. Guess why.....




So, if we agree that the creation stories were not dictated by god but written by man, then it would not be surprising if these men made mistakes, correct? Which means that the Big Bang and the creatin stories need not go hand in hand perfectly..... so why worry????

 

[Samson]

CH, you have not given a definition. Please read the dictionary entry I provided to learn what a definition is. If you disagree with me on that, please explain how the text you c&ped does fulfill the definition of definition

It is not that far off. I think it can be summerized as;

A kind is those oganisms that have evolved (?) from 1 species.

Unfortunatly it simply changes the question to what is the size of a kind. Are all known organisms one kind (it has been postulated that certain archaea may have originated seperatly from the rest of life)? Do the organisms we find on europa have a common ancestor (perhaps from a comet that split up and a part landed on earth and another on europa).

It also makes meaningless the statement that organisms cannot evolve between kinds. As that is the definition of kind, then they obviously cannot. You can say similar things about any definition of macro evolution that includes the term kind.

 

[carlosMM]

Let's see what's in that text....

the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’

thus, they must define 'species'. Let's assume they use the usual scientific definition of a group of specimen who can and do interbreed and produce fertile young.

as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind

Now they ADOPT the definition of 'species', but ADD those animals and plants with nonfertile young. Thus, a kind is a species with fertile inter-specic hybrids added even if the F1 is not fertile :crazyeyes:

The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.

NOW they say that it is not a valid distinction criterion, but rather an accessory one :crazyeyes:

So, WHAT IS A KIND??????????

for all the rest of the text, they yadda-yadda on, STILL without a definition....

Basically, you get your average religious lies, smoke-blowing and excuses. That is not a basis for a rational discussion, but only for idiotic strawman creation

 

[carlosMM]

It is not that far off. I think it can be summerized as;

A kind is those oganisms that have evolved (?) from 1 species.

Yeah, nice, hu? The problem is that if we now ask them go give examples of 'kinds', what they hand us is 'taxa' Done that before, C_H refuses to name kinds..... guess why.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think an example of a 'kind' is the uberbear that I've mentioned before. Everything descended from the uberbear is a kind. The definition seems to assume that there was nothing before the uberbear.

What would be needed to refute the hypothesis of the 'uberbear' would be a sample of a species before the bear. I don't know, though, if they would merely claim that it is a mutant descendant of an uberbear.

bgast: you asked if life had been spontaneously generated in a lab. It depends on whether or not you believe that viruses are alive, because they've been assembled spontaneously in a lab.

 

[carlosMM]

I think an example of a 'kind' is the uberbear that I've mentioned before. Everything descended from the uberbear is a kind. The definition seems to assume that there was nothing before the uberbear.

with the slight problem that no creationist has ever been able to explain how this can be reconciled with
a) the fossil evidence
b) genetics
c) the supposed lack of evolution - what did the ueberbear do to become modern bears?

And, why was it an ueberbear, and not simply an ueber-brown-bear? Or, for that matter, any ueber-canoid, or, perhaps just a general ueber-carnivore?????


nah, this 'ueber' thing makes 'kind' equivalent to 'taxon', which makes the biblical story dumbass stupid, because all Noah would have had to take along is a single individual of the first ever living orgtanism and then let them evolve on

What great proof that evolution is false

So, here's a question for you, c_h: following your 'definition' of 'kind', can you please name 5 kinds?

 

[aaglo]

Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim

1. I agree
2. I agree

Well, that's the end of this discussion from my part

 

[diablodelmar]

Evolution is not a valid science claim. It assumes hundreds of things and nobody has proof for any of them. The Big Bang is a rediculous assumption.

Neither is Creation. They are both religions. The difference is that Evolution is tax supported.

 

[aaglo]

Religion has been tax supported for much longer time.

 

[El_Machinae]

Religion is about as tax-supported is it gets. Charity donations (and religions receive a huge portion of those) are tax-deductible - which is essentially a subsidy.

Diablo: What do you think about Hovind being arrested? For, of all things, not paying taxes?

 

[ironduck]

Iron Duck-- You asked some questions about rain and rainbows, and I think the flood came up as well. I am curious as to why you ask this question? Certainly from a scientific standpoint you have aroused my curiosity as well, but my motive for wanting to know might be different than yours. I think that the answers to the question are probably more important theologically than scientifically. But I speak for myself.

Oh, glad to have someone address it.. it's quite simple, the way I read the story of Noah it seems to say that god introduces the rainbow as a symbol of the promise he makes to Noah. In other word, it sounds like there were no rainbows before (it certainly makes it more dramatic than if he chose a phenomenon Noah was already quite used to).

Now, if there were no rainbows on earth before that promise then either A) there were no large spread of water drops anywhere to be seen or B) the laws of physics were different.

Assuming A) that means no rain or at least no rain with only partial cloud cover. It also means no waterfalls. It also means that no sloshing around water by yourself with a garden hose (or maybe they didn't have that back then, but then making their own mini waterfalls or something). Having no rain and no waterfalls etc. sounds, well, impractical.

Assuming B) that means the refractive qualities of water should be different. Somehow water should be opague.. but how does one go about changing those refractive qualities? By altering the properties of all molecules or the speed of light or what? The implied questions here are highly dramatic.

I don't know if it ever rained before the flood. I don't think so, and the reason I don't think so is because of the vast amount of water that it took to flood the earth. Also, I think part of the answer might be deduced by the rainbow question which I will answer a little later.

I don't understand how you base the 'no rain' in the fact that it would have taken a lot of water to flood the earth. I just don't see connection. How does no rain before the flood make it any easier to flood the earth? I would think it would make it even harder.

Anyway, let's assume it didn't rain before the flood. Where did the plants get their water from? Where did people get their water from? Somehow there must've been water for them, so let's say it was underground. In that case the plants and people will ingest the water and then it will perspire/transpire/evaporate from them. Eventually the evaporated water will condense and precipitate (rain). So how do you get around the evaporation-condensation cycle in the atmosphere when you have organisms that rely on water living on the planet?

As for rainbows, I don't know the answer to that either. Perhaps you are correct in assuming that colors around a waterfall would or could have been seen. But, would this technically be considered a rainbow? Nevertheless, the rainbow in the sky in the clouds has another purpose. The Bible says that the rainbow seen in the clouds is God's covenant to all mankind to never send another flood on earth that will destroy all life.

See pics in here!

Spoiler :

These are rainbows from waterfalls, light is refracted in drops of water. Rain can make rainbows that lie low and high, a person's vantage point can change relative to a rainbow. If there are waterfalls and direct sunlight there are rainbows, the higher and larger the waterfall the greater the chance of getting a rainbow 'in the sky'.

Is this rainbow more 'in the sky'? It's not from a waterfall, yet we're looking down upon it.

See pic in here!

Spoiler :

(images from http://www.allthesky.com/atmosphere/ay22rainbow28.html http://www.pbase.com/image/32799580 http://www.michaeljohnmeehan.com/ComingSoon.htm http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/vol...pe/iceland/volcanoes_iceland_detail.html?&L=1 http://jobs-tale-redux.blogspot.com/ http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~milford/overseas/PG 06Yosemite/galTYosemite1 036.htm)

 

[ironduck]

Diablo: What do you think about Hovind being arrested? For, of all things, not paying taxes?

Oh the irony!

 

[ironduck]

I apologize for not scaling down my pics, now the formatting of the entire page is messed up..

 

[sanabas]

But they are such pretty pics. Especially the second and third. Do you know which waterfalls they are?

The dinosaur part was not refering to you but to other creationists, like civ2. Yet, you too seem to accept most of science but you regect evolution for faith based reasons. This is inconsistant. Evolution theory is one of the most well grounded of scientific theories.

To be fair, from previous conversations I get the impression that BGast hasn't completely rejected evolution on faith based reasons. More that both faith and personal incredulity suggest evolution is wrong, and he is yet to be presented compelling evidence that it is right. But that unlike Hovind, AiG, et al, he won't dismiss the evidence automatically, seek to discredit the evidence, etc. I think he is prepared to re-evaluate his theory based on new (or better explained) evidence. I could be wrong though.

 

[Samson]

Evolution is not a valid science claim. It assumes hundreds of things and nobody has proof for any of them. The Big Bang is a rediculous assumption.

Fancy giving anything to back these statements up? I would suggest as a minimum;

Your definition of a valid science claim. [1]
How evolution does not fit this definition.
What is ridiculus about the big bang theory. Of course it is not proven, but it is the model we have at the moment that best fits observation.

[1] What I found with a quick google;

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Scientific method; Scientists use model to refer to a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions that can be tested by experiment or observation.

 

[ironduck]

But they are such pretty pics. Especially the second and third. Do you know which waterfalls they are?

The second is the Gulfoss waterfall on Iceland http://www.pbase.com/image/32799580 and the third is one of the Iguazu falls at the Argentina-Brazil border http://www.michaeljohnmeehan.com/ComingSoon.htm (I put all the links at the end of my other post).

I think he is prepared to re-evaluate his theory based on new (or better explained) evidence.

That's why I responded at such length