About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

October 15, 2009 7:50am by David Farrar

General Debate 15 October 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment288

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (288)

Login to comment or vote

Kris K

Morning Mr. Smaller,

We’re back to God-bother you; well, at least I am.
I trust you’ve sent the kids off to their religious school, and you’re now ready for some more reading – *zap*.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:23am
Kris K

Pete George 8:31 pm,

“… there is no God …”

No one has said that here. I have said there is no tangible proof there being a god. I have said there is no tangible proof of creation. I don’t think there ever will be. But I can’t rule out something that cannot be proven.

The science of evolution is not last ditch, the evidence keeps growing.

The evidence for the existence of a god has remained the same for thousands of years, nil.

Actually the “… there is no God …” mantra is how I view evolutionary ‘scientists’ as they chant their lies in unison.

And I really do believe their attempts are last ditch efforts – the evidence keeps growing – sadly, it is against evolution and for ID. The more we discover, the more we perceive the complexity of creation, and the more we see the fingerprint of an highly intelligent Designer behind it. Rather than God, I see the evidence for evolution as ‘nil’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:33am
Ryan Sproull

Actually the “… there is no God …” mantra is how I view evolutionary ’scientists’ as they chant their lies in unison.

And I really do believe their attempts are last ditch efforts – the evidence keeps growing – sadly, it is against evolution and for ID. The more we discover, the more we perceive the complexity of creation, and the more we see the fingerprint of an highly intelligent Designer behind it.

Kris, that is completely and utterly not the case. Can you give any evidence to support your claim?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:39am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 9:19 am,

Sorry Ryan, didn’t see you lurking there.
I thought I’d beaten you to it – but you were 4 minutes ahead of me – bridesmaid again; always get the bouquet.

Kris, that’s precisely my point. You talk like biologists simply write, “It just evolved,” over and over. They don’t. They investigate and write about how life evolved, what the effects of this are, the many things this explains, how we can use the insights of evolutionary biology to combat disease, etc.

I do see ev. biologists that way. They just couch their language in ‘scientific’ psycho-babble. Their ‘investigations’ are founded upon ‘evolutionary’ assumptions dressed up as ‘fact’. If anything, evolutionary biology actually is an hindrance to real science; many biologists are in fact frustrated with it for this reason (don’t have source at hand).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:45am
Pete George

Kris, when you suggest that the earth “is of the order of tens of thousands of years old” do you mean just the earth, or the solar system, or the galaxy, or the universe (our one anyway)?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:48am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 9:39 am,

And I really do believe their attempts are last ditch efforts – the evidence keeps growing – sadly, it is against evolution and for ID. The more we discover, the more we perceive the complexity of creation, and the more we see the fingerprint of an highly intelligent Designer behind it.

Kris, that is completely and utterly not the case. Can you give any evidence to support your claim?

DNA is a bit of a show-stopper.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:50am
Kris K

Pete George 9:48 am,

Kris, when you suggest that the earth “is of the order of tens of thousands of years old” do you mean just the earth, or the solar system, or the galaxy, or the universe (our one anyway)?

The whole of the creation; including the earth. Earth is just what we’re most familiar with, and hence is a good a-typical example.
I perceive many more resultant questions as a result of this declaration – such as the speed of light issue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:56am
Ryan Sproull

DNA is a bit of a show-stopper.

The discovery of the very mechanism for evolution, which explains how Darwin’s theory actually works, is the fingerprint for a highly intelligent designer?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 9:57am
Pete George

Why is DNA a show stopper? What seems more feasible – for it to gradually increase in complexity over a very long time, or to suddenly be created complete as it is now? Version 1.0 bug free?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:00am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 9:57 am,

DNA is a bit of a show-stopper.

The discovery of the very mechanism for evolution, which explains how Darwin’s theory actually works, is the fingerprint for a highly intelligent designer?

You’ve got to be joking!
Darwin based his theory on the ‘simple cell’. There is nothing simple about it!
DNA reveals that the cell is anything but ‘simple’. Nothing man has, or ever will, designed comes even close to the complexity of DNA; both in its structure and functions.

DNA is, in fact, the biggest stumbling block for evolution!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:05am
Ryan Sproull

You’ve got to be joking!
Darwin based his theory on the ’simple cell’. There is nothing simple about it!
DNA reveals that the cell is anything but ’simple’. Nothing man has, or ever will, designed comes even close to the complexity of DNA; both in its structure and functions.

DNA is, in fact, the biggest stumbling block for evolution!

Of course it’s not. DNA is the mechanism by which the “simple cell” (in other words, the individual cell) can propagate and vary, enabling cellular life to evolve.

The complexity isn’t a problem, as it is the nature of self-replicating patterns to become ever more complex, so long as they survive. It would be somewhat more “miraculous” if DNA hadn’t become extremely complex over millions of years.

Put it this way. If you had a shoelace in your pocket and you walked around for a thousand years, non-stop, then pulled it out, what would be more surprising to you?

1. The shoelace was all rolled up into twists and knots.
2. The shoelace was still just as straight and untwisted as it had been when you first put it in there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:11am
Kris K

Pete George 10:00 am,

Why is DNA a show stopper? What seems more feasible – for it to gradually increase in complexity over a very long time, or to suddenly be created complete as it is now? Version 1.0 bug free?

The latter is more feasible in my book (no pun intended, but I’ll take it).
Nothing increases in complexity without the input of energy and intelligence. Observable science actually proves that things run down, become less complex, and wear out. Just to maintain something requires energy and intelligence, let alone to ‘create’ it in the first place.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:16am
Ryan Sproull

Nothing increases in complexity without the input of energy and intelligence.

Nothing does anything without the input of energy, but there is no support for your claim that intelligence is required, and plenty of examples to the contrary. Wouldn’t you say that snowflakes are more complex than water vapour?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:19am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 10:11 am,

DNA is, in fact, the biggest stumbling block for evolution!

Of course it’s not. DNA is the mechanism by which the “simple cell” (in other words, the individual cell) can propagate and vary, enabling cellular life to evolve.

I know the purpose of DNA, Ryan; its complexity inherently points to its Designer – not to a sequence of random, increasingly disorganised, events over ‘billions’ of years.

The complexity isn’t a problem, as it is the nature of self-replicating patterns to become ever more complex, so long as they survive. It would be somewhat more “miraculous” if DNA hadn’t become extremely complex over millions of years.

Can you give me an example of a man-made ‘system’ where “self-replicating patterns [have] become ever more complex” – without additional input (energy/intelligence) from Man?

Put it this way. If you had a shoelace in your pocket and you walked around for a thousand years, non-stop, then pulled it out, what would be more surprising to you?

1. The shoelace was all rolled up into twists and knots.
2. The shoelace was still just as straight and untwisted as it had been when you first put it in there.

I guess one man’s bloody mess is anothers complex, information based code.
What information/intelligence has been added to your ‘messy string’ assuming you’re advocating option 1?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:34am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 10:19 am,

Nothing increases in complexity without the input of energy and intelligence.

Nothing does anything without the input of energy, but there is no support for your claim that intelligence is required, and plenty of examples to the contrary. Wouldn’t you say that snowflakes are more complex than water vapour?

The complexity of a snowflake:
This is a secondary effect resulting from physical laws which were set in place by the Designer.
Crystallisation, gravity, electricity et al all bear His hallmark.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:43am
Pete George

Do you thing your creator designed a geocentric universe?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 10:57am
Ryan Sproull

I know the purpose of DNA, Ryan; its complexity inherently points to its Designer – not to a sequence of random, increasingly disorganised, events over ‘billions’ of years.

I didn’t say anything about “random, increasingly disorganised events”. Nor did I say billions of years, for that matter. DNA is the result of millions of years of causal self-replication and variation.

Can you give me an example of a man-made ’system’ where “self-replicating patterns [have] become ever more complex” – without additional input (energy/intelligence) from Man?

A simple example is Conway’s Game of Life, where simple rules give rise to more complex structures without design. It’s only really in the realm of computer progamming that we can get generations fast enough to perform something that happens over millions of years in the real world.

I guess one man’s bloody mess is anothers complex, information based code.
What information/intelligence has been added to your ‘messy string’ assuming you’re advocating option 1?

You’re the one talking about information all the time, Kris. I don’t need to explain what’s not there – or what is only there if you decide to label it that way.

The point is that when…
1. a pattern self-replicates, and…
2. the pattern sometimes varies from generation to generation, and…
3. variations of one kind will tend to survive while variations of another kind will not,…

…then it is inevitable that, over time, the pattern will tend toward the kind of variation that survives. If that involves becoming more complex, the pattern will become more complex, because the more complex variations will survive while the simpler ones die off.

Regarding the shoelace, the knots are like those variations that stick, and twists that don’t knot are like those variations that don’t stick. It is inevitable that the shoelace will tend, over time, to become knotted. Similarly, it is inevitable that life will tend, over time, to become more complex – if that complexity makes it more likely to survive to replicate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 11:01am
Ryan Sproull

The complexity of a snowflake:
This is a secondary effect resulting from physical laws which were set in place by the Designer.
Crystallisation, gravity, electricity et al all bear His hallmark.

That was all done before the water vapour formed into a snowflake. You claimed increased complexity requires intelligent input to occur.

If you’re changing that to include setting up the conditions for something to increase in complexity on its own, then even if you understood how DNA evolved from a long line of increasing complexity, you’d simply say, “This is a secondary effect resulting from physical laws which were set in place by the Designer. Chemical interaction, gravity, heat, hydrogen nuclei transference or whatever all bear His hallmark.”

Though you should probably explain how gravity bears His hallmark, unless you just see His hallmark everywhere because you start with the assumption that everything in existence was made by God, therefore existence is His hallmark.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 11:05am
Kris K

Pete George 10:57 am,

Do you thing your creator designed a geocentric universe?

Everything that exists is as a result of the handiwork of the Creator.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 11:11am
Ryan Sproull

10. Everything that exists is as a result of the handiwork of the Creator.
20. Therefore, everything is evidence of the Creator.
30. Therefore, the Creator created everything.
40. Goto 10.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 11:15am
Pete George

Are you trying to avoid the question?

It was generally thought, by churches and others, that the universe was geocentric. From about the 16th century as scientific knowledge increased it became widely (almost universally) accepted that the universe was heliocentric.

From the 19th century scientific knowledge has increased so that it has become widely ( almost universally in related scientific circles) accepted that evolution is how species have developed and changed. This does not discount the possibility that there was some initial creation (nor is there anything to prove that).

Young earthers are modern day equivalent of flat earthers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 11:31am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 11:01 am,

I didn’t say anything about “random, increasingly disorganised events”. Nor did I say billions of years, for that matter. DNA is the result of millions of years of causal self-replication and variation.

Disagree.
While DNA indeed self replicates, it never ‘improves’; it only degrades, or increases in its error count.
Any variation within species is generally associated with loss of genetic ‘information’, not the gaining of it. For example, my Dog sub species example of yesterday. Inbreeding results in loss of genetic diversity; and hence loss of genetic information. Many of European royalty were the result of this; similar to the Dog example above.
The only ’cause’ was in the original intent of the Designer.

A simple example is Conway’s Game of Life, where simple rules give rise to more complex structures without design. It’s only really in the realm of computer progamming that we can get generations fast enough to perform something that happens over millions of years in the real world.

I’m not familiar with this game. Any software I’m aware of only manipulates data, it doesn’t add ‘information’ of its own accord. But even if there were an example of a learning programme, this would be more akin to the human brain; where an adult has acquired more information than a child. But this doesn’t mean that an adult brain is more complex than a child’s. It has just acquired more data. The complexity of the brain, for example, is not in the amount of data it contains, but rather in its ability to gather that data, store it, and intelligently use it. Much in the same way that we’re able to engage in this discussion and draw upon our data-base to construct logical arguments.
Once again, this is evidence of the One who designed the brain in the first place.

You’re the one talking about information all the time, Kris. I don’t need to explain what’s not there – or what is only there if you decide to label it that way.

But this is the crux of the argument – both for evolutionary ‘scientists’ and ID advocates.
Where does the intelligence come from that we see inherently contained within DNA, for example?
As an engineer, nothing I design comes about without intelligence (calcs, drawings, specs) and energy (the manufacturing/commissioning processes). Evolution has no answer for DNA except the tried and true ‘random changes’ over ‘huge’ time-spans. ID advocates simply acknowledge that Intelligence begets intelligence.

The point is that when…
1. a pattern self-replicates, and…
2. the pattern sometimes varies from generation to generation, and…
3. variations of one kind will tend to survive while variations of another kind will not,…

…then it is inevitable that, over time, the pattern will tend toward the kind of variation that survives. If that involves becoming more complex, the pattern will become more complex, because the more complex variations will survive while the simpler ones die off.

While things self replicate they don’t necessarily ‘improve’. While somethings survive, and some of the genetically weaker die off, the ‘stronger’ are just those with less loss of genetic variation; there has been no addition of genetic complexity. Apparently the number of species that have become extinct is huge, and yet there are no new species that have come about by evolution. There are as a result far less species today than even fifty years ago. When weather patterns/environments change things die out. Those that survive are only those things predisposed to handle those climatic changes – they haven’t gotten any additional genetic information to allow them to survive.

Given enough time eventually everything would die out, and earth would be nothing more than a barren wasteland.

Regarding the shoelace, the knots are like those variations that stick, and twists that don’t knot are like those variations that don’t stick. It is inevitable that the shoelace will tend, over time, to become knotted. Similarly, it is inevitable that life will tend, over time, to become more complex – if that complexity makes it more likely to survive to replicate.

Incorrect.
The knots are like bad code within DNA. Over time the knots will increase in the same way that genetic errors increase within DNA. The final result is a fully degraded and corrupted end product. In the case of the string – small dustlike particles of cotton. In the case of a DNA based species – a dead and extinct creature group.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 12:10pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 11:05 am,

The complexity of a snowflake:
This is a secondary effect resulting from physical laws which were set in place by the Designer.
Crystallisation, gravity, electricity et al all bear His hallmark.

That was all done before the water vapour formed into a snowflake. You claimed increased complexity requires intelligent input to occur.

If you’re changing that to include setting up the conditions for something to increase in complexity on its own, then even if you understood how DNA evolved from a long line of increasing complexity, you’d simply say, “This is a secondary effect resulting from physical laws which were set in place by the Designer. Chemical interaction, gravity, heat, hydrogen nuclei transference or whatever all bear His hallmark.”

Though you should probably explain how gravity bears His hallmark, unless you just see His hallmark everywhere because you start with the assumption that everything in existence was made by God, therefore existence is His hallmark.

While there are ‘Laws’ set in place that dictate the way matter, etc behaves, and while those laws may allow for something like the snowflake to be more complex than say water vapour, it doesn’t imply the snowflake is more complex as a ‘first cause’, but rather the laws behind the way water molecules behave in different states are the true complexity and hallmark of the Designer.
Of course we can see, test, and measure the characteristics of the water molecule and validate it scientifically.

In a similar way the behaviour of DNA abides by the Laws set in place by the Designer.
When we observe, test, and measure the characteristics of DNA we only conclude that it is pre-set; it doesn’t increase in complexity, but degrades; and evolutionary ‘science’ has no answer for its existence or its functionality – it is relegated to the super-natural; beyond the natural.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 12:29pm
Ryan Sproull

Disagree.
While DNA indeed self replicates, it never ‘improves’; it only degrades, or increases in its error count.
Any variation within species is generally associated with loss of genetic ‘information’, not the gaining of it. For example, my Dog sub species example of yesterday. Inbreeding results in loss of genetic diversity; and hence loss of genetic information. Many of European royalty were the result of this; similar to the Dog example above.
The only ’cause’ was in the original intent of the Designer.

“Improvement” is subjective. DNA changes, and sometimes the change is advantageous to reproduction. This is observable fact.

I’m not familiar with this game. Any software I’m aware of only manipulates data, it doesn’t add ‘information’ of its own accord. But even if there were an example of a learning programme, this would be more akin to the human brain; where an adult has acquired more information than a child. But this doesn’t mean that an adult brain is more complex than a child’s. It has just acquired more data. The complexity of the brain, for example, is not in the amount of data it contains, but rather in its ability to gather that data, store it, and intelligently use it. Much in the same way that we’re able to engage in this discussion and draw upon our data-base to construct logical arguments.
Once again, this is evidence of the One who designed the brain in the first place.

You asked for an example of increased complexity and I gave you one. Now you have moved the goalposts to adding “information” without intelligent input, which I’ve already explained is a misapplication of the word. I am not saying that there is information in DNA, or added information.

But this is the crux of the argument – both for evolutionary ’scientists’ and ID advocates.
Where does the intelligence come from that we see inherently contained within DNA, for example?

I see no intelligence inherently contained in DNA. You do. You also see intelligence inherently contained in everything.

As an engineer, nothing I design comes about without intelligence (calcs, drawings, specs) and energy (the manufacturing/commissioning processes). Evolution has no answer for DNA except the tried and true ‘random changes’ over ‘huge’ time-spans. ID advocates simply acknowledge that Intelligence begets intelligence.

Everything you design is by definition designed. That only makes your creations analogous to everything else in the world if you assume from the start that everything in the world was also designed. But that should be the conclusion of your argument, not your initial premise.

While things self replicate they don’t necessarily ‘improve’.

Again, you’re introducing the word “improve”. I am not. A pattern that tends to survive more than its competition simply tends to survive more than its competition. That doesn’t make it “better”, only more likely to survive than its competition.

While somethings survive, and some of the genetically weaker die off, the ’stronger’ are just those with less loss of genetic variation; there has been no addition of genetic complexity.

That is demonstrably not true. Biologists have observed the addition of genetic material and traits that did not previously exist within a population of bacteria.

Apparently the number of species that have become extinct is huge, and yet there are no new species that have come about by evolution.

Every species has come about by evolution. The reason the number of species that have become extinct is huge is because there has been millions of years of competition and variation.

There are as a result far less species today than even fifty years ago. When weather patterns/environments change things die out. Those that survive are only those things predisposed to handle those climatic changes – they haven’t gotten any additional genetic information to allow them to survive.

I don’t know which species you’re talking about, but keep in mind that evolution can only occur from variation to variation. For some animals, there has only been one generation in the last 50 years. For others, like rabbits, there have been many generations – but still not comparable to the amount of time required for truly large observable genetic shifts.

Given enough time eventually everything would die out, and earth would be nothing more than a barren wasteland.

In the long term, that is not true. In the longest term, of course, the sun will change and there will be no more energy input into earth and life will no longer be possible.

Incorrect.
The knots are like bad code within DNA. Over time the knots will increase in the same way that genetic errors increase within DNA. The final result is a fully degraded and corrupted end product. In the case of the string – small dustlike particles of cotton. In the case of a DNA based species – a dead and extinct creature group.

You’re confusing the analogy. The knots are not like bad code within DNA, because the knots are examples of things that survive. Bad code within DNA dies off. Bad code within DNA is like unknotted twists that disppear almost as quickly as they appear. Over time, knots persist, just as over time, survival-tending changes to DNA persist.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 12:29pm
Pete George

Kris, if a designer designed everything, what was it all designed from? Or did the designer design every atom and molecule and create them out of nothing? There must have been something before all this, or was the designer nothing in a void?

Are you suggesting that in “the beginning” all species were created, and since then species have only either survived or died out? If so, how may species would there have been originally?

Do you think humans lived alongside dinosaurs?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 12:43pm
Kris K

Pete George 11:31 am,

Are you trying to avoid the question?

It was generally thought, by churches and others, that the universe was geocentric. From about the 16th century as scientific knowledge increased it became widely (almost universally) accepted that the universe was heliocentric.

From the 19th century scientific knowledge has increased so that it has become widely ( almost universally in related scientific circles) accepted that evolution is how species have developed and changed. This does not discount the possibility that there was some initial creation (nor is there anything to prove that).

Young earthers are modern day equivalent of flat earthers.

And of course you’re wrong.
The early church foolishly accepted the current ‘scientific’ wisdom of their day.
Luckily some of us have grown up since then, and have learned to think for ourselves.

It is interesting that you highlight the then accepted scientific belief that the earth was flat.
If the church had bothered to read God’s word, rather than blindly accepting the then man-made belief, they would have realised the truth about the earth being spherical/round versus flat:

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

God revealed His truth long before Man even contemplated it!
And He should know; He made it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 12:46pm
Ryan Sproull

Kris,

People who believe the earth is flat believe it is a flat circle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 12:58pm
Pete George

I asked about geocentric versus heliocentric, that is quite different. The churches believed we had a geocentric universe until science, using inventions like the telescope and using mathematics, proved it was wrong.

It was accepted by most that the earth wasn’t flat before Christ and Christanity.

…the realization first recorded around the 4th century BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is spherical. The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 1:01pm
Luc Hansen

“If the church had bothered to read God’s word…”

“from the staggering account
of the sermon on the mount
which I don’t pretend to understand at all…”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 1:03pm
labrator

Kris K, I think you’re confused about what the church “accepted” in regards to the “current ‘scientific’ wisdom”. Defending the church prior to the 20th century is generally a bad idea. They were never as open to debate as you are, have you read about Galileo’s imprisonment?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 1:05pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 12:29 pm,

“Improvement” is subjective. DNA changes, and sometimes the change is advantageous to reproduction. This is observable fact.

Yes, it may change, but invariably this change is a result of loss of information.

You asked for an example of increased complexity and I gave you one. Now you have moved the goalposts to adding “information” without intelligent input, which I’ve already explained is a misapplication of the word. I am not saying that there is information in DNA, or added information.

What is code if not information? What is DNA if not code? Is DNA with more code more complex, or not?
Next you’ll be saying computer code is not information.
And you didn’t address my human brain example: Is an adult brain more complex than a child’s just because it contains more data? Or are they of the same degree of complexity?
Isn’t the brain just an example of a ‘learning programme’ which gathers more data but is in and of itself no more complex whether in child or adult form?
Perhaps we’re confusing base code (DNA) with acquired code/information (brain).
So with your ‘learning programme’ game the original software (DNA) was programmed by the programmer, while acquired code (brain data) was gathered as a subsequent result.
But perhaps this is where our ‘learning programme’ comparison with DNA falls down.
I go back to my original premise regarding DNA; while DNA allows its host creature to grow a brain, and that brain gathers data, the resultant data doesn’t feedback to the original DNA code and upgrade it.
And of course we have the issue of whether acquired brain data is even stored solely, or at all, in the brain; or is it stored in the soul/spirit – but let’s not go there.

I see no intelligence inherently contained in DNA. You do. You also see intelligence inherently contained in everything.

Do you, then, acknowledeg that code is information? And is DNA code? And therefore is DNA information? And how did the information get there unless something put it there?

Everything you design is by definition designed. That only makes your creations analogous to everything else in the world if you assume from the start that everything in the world was also designed. But that should be the conclusion of your argument, not your initial premise.

But that is the conclusion one comes to without starting out with the premise that everything was designed. And this is the argument of ID advocates. By simply applying the scientific method the only honest conclusion one comes to is that there must be a designer (and not necessarily God).

If I dig a cup up when out doing my gardening, do I say that it’s a result of evolutionary processes, or do I conclude that a potter made it?
And yet when we look at something which is a product of nature, a flower for example, we automatically say that it came about by pure chance – or at least the original plant, etc from which it came is. And the flower is certainly more complex than the cup.

Again, you’re introducing the word “improve”. I am not. A pattern that tends to survive more than its competition simply tends to survive more than its competition. That doesn’t make it “better”, only more likely to survive than its competition.

But isn’t this the inherent claim of evolution – that things get better over time?
When in fact they do not.

That is demonstrably not true. Biologists have observed the addition of genetic material and traits that did not previously exist within a population of bacteria.

So you’re saying there’s more DNA ‘code’?
Do you have a source?
And are these biologists non agenda driven, and have they started on the premise that evolution is fact?

Every species has come about by evolution. The reason the number of species that have become extinct is huge is because there has been millions of years of competition and variation.

And this is the tired old evolutionary answer to everything – milions/billions of years. And you accuse me of building a conclusion based on a premise. For evolution to work huge time spans are required. So therefore huge time spans MUST be fact, Therefore evolution is fact – and round and round we go.
Of course huge time spans only make things worse; 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and all that – more time, more decay.

I don’t know which species you’re talking about, but keep in mind that evolution can only occur from variation to variation. For some animals, there has only been one generation in the last 50 years. For others, like rabbits, there have been many generations – but still not comparable to the amount of time required for truly large observable genetic shifts.

Once again you have to haul out your ‘long periods of time’ to ‘solve’ your problem.
And even if it were true, more time just makes it worse, not better.
Same old tired premise upon which you draw your long dead conclusion.

In the long term, that is not true. In the longest term, of course, the sun will change and there will be no more energy input into earth and life will no longer be possible.

Disagree.
With the observable loss of species/plants etc life on earth in recent history, the earth will be long dead before the sun has any affect on our planet.

You’re confusing the analogy. The knots are not like bad code within DNA, because the knots are examples of things that survive. Bad code within DNA dies off. Bad code within DNA is like unknotted twists that disppear almost as quickly as they appear. Over time, knots persist, just as over time, survival-tending changes to DNA persist.

Whether it’s knots or untwisted knots, the string still becomes cotton dust.
DNA suffers loss of information/code. Eventually it, and indeed all living matter, will degrade into its constituent chemicals. Dead and buried; all life extinct. This is the only conclusion IF evolution is true. Long time spans, or not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 2:30pm
Kris K

labrator 1:05 pm,

Kris K, I think you’re confused about what the church “accepted” in regards to the “current ’scientific’ wisdom”. Defending the church prior to the 20th century is generally a bad idea. They were never as open to debate as you are, have you read about Galileo’s imprisonment?

That’s exactly my point: I don’t defend the early church regarding its attitude toward non-biblical, man made thinking of the day. And of course much of the believed error was Roman Catholic belief and policy. The RC church has much bigger problems than whether or not the earth goes around the sun.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 2:41pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 12:58 pm,

Kris,
People who believe the earth is flat believe it is a flat circle.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth3427 upon5921 the circle2329 of the earth,776 and the inhabitants3427 thereof are as grasshoppers;2284 that stretcheth out5186 the heavens8064 as a curtain,1852 and spreadeth them out4969 as a tent168 to dwell in:3427

And the meaning of circle2329 from the Hebrew is:

H2329
חוּג
chûg
khoog
From H2328; a circle: – circle, circuit, compassive

Which is descriptive both of it being spherical/circular, and that it does a circuit; daily and yearly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 2:51pm
Ryan Sproull

Kris,

That life has been going for millions of years is part of my view of the world. You cannot complain that I refer to one part of my view of the world in order to explain another part of my view of the world. It is not pulling out a tired excuse to solve a problem. It is responding to your challenges to my beliefs with expanded information of what I believe to be true, and my reasons for believing it.

The version of events I am explaining and defending includes an earth that was not instantly created 6000 years ago. Deal with it. It is not a problem to me that evolution makes no sense in the context of a 6000-year-old earth – it is clear to me that the earth is much older than that. If you are to honestly attempt to understand what I am saying, you must understand that a millions-year-old earth is a part of that.

You say:

But isn’t this the inherent claim of evolution – that things get better over time?

No, it is not. Saying so demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not moving “towards” anything. Life on earth is not improving or even necessarily becoming more and more complex.

Evolution is simply this: what tends to survive, tends to survive. When a change occurs in a pattern that makes it more likely to survive than other patterns, it tends to survive more than other patterns. That doesn’t make it better or improved. It’s just the way things go.

As for DNA as a “code”, and therefore “information”, and therefore “put there by someone”, my answer is that no, I do not see DNA as a “code” in the relevant sense. It is simply a pattern of matter that interacts in a particular way. One may somewhat cartoonishly refer to it as a “blueprint” for an organism, just as one can talk about the “laws” of physics, or nature “hating” a vacuum. But that does not mean that someone is hanging out enforcing the laws of physics, or that nature complains about vacuums behind their backs, or that someone sat down and drew up the “blueprint”.

And I didn’t accuse you of basing a conclusion on a premise, I accused you of using your conclusion as your premise. I am not saying, “Life evolved, therefore all life is evidence of evolution, therefore there is overwhelming that life evolved, therefore life evolved.” You, on the other hand, often say what amounts to, “God made everything, therefore God’s hallmark is on everything, therefore there is evidence of God’s creation everywhere, therefore God made everything.”

And finally, DNA does not “suffer loss of information/code”. DNA changes in ways that are sometimes advantageous and most times disadvantageous for its host organism. There is no need to refer to one as “damage” or “loss”. DNA gains genes through gene duplification and mutation of a new gene can produce additional traits in the organism that may or may not give it an advantage over competition. Also, because change to the new gene is less likely to be harmful to the organism, it’s more opportunity for mutation without killing the host.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 3:10pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 3:10 pm,

Kris,

That life has been going for millions of years is part of my view of the world. You cannot complain that I refer to one part of my view of the world in order to explain another part of my view of the world. It is not pulling out a tired excuse to solve a problem. It is responding to your challenges to my beliefs with expanded information of what I believe to be true, and my reasons for believing it.

But your worldview is assumed fact – ‘millions of years old’.
I don’t blame you, it’s just that to be consistant if your foundation is assumed to be fact, but is not, then the rest is just a house of cards. And unsubstantiated belief is just ‘faith’ – which of course is consistant with evolution being a religion rather than science.

The version of events I am explaining and defending includes an earth that was not instantly created 6000 years ago. Deal with it. It is not a problem to me that evolution makes no sense in the context of a 6000-year-old earth – it is clear to me that the earth is much older than that. If you are to honestly attempt to understand what I am saying, you must understand that a millions-year-old earth is a part of that.

And likewise, it’s not a problem to me that your ‘belief’ assumes millions of years, and makes no sense in the context of the evidence. It is clear to me that the earth is much younger than can be substantiated by evolution. And if you honestly attempt to understand what I am saying, you must understand that a millions-year-old earth is not able to be substantiated based on the evidence that I’m confronted with.

You say:

But isn’t this the inherent claim of evolution – that things get better over time?

No, it is not. Saying so demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not moving “towards” anything. Life on earth is not improving or even necessarily becoming more and more complex.

While I agree in the sense that there is no purpose to evolution, to say that I fundamentally misunderstand evolution is disengenuous. I understand it perfectly – especially in it’s attempts to excuse men of their sexual mores and ultimate accountability to God. To imply that ‘higher life forms’ (eg Man) are not more advanced than the slime he is meant to have come from, actually ignores the claims and explanations that evoltion is the justification for all life. It really is a cop-out, Ryan, to say that evolution happens because it happens. And even though it flies in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, common sense, and evidence which means there must be external energy/information input – but of course you say there is none, just reveals what a crock the whole thing really is.

Evolution is simply this: what tends to survive, tends to survive. When a change occurs in a pattern that makes it more likely to survive than other patterns, it tends to survive more than other patterns. That doesn’t make it better or improved. It’s just the way things go.

Kay sera sera, what ever will be, will be – a purposless, non evidence based, Godless contrivance.

As for DNA as a “code”, and therefore “information”, and therefore “put there by someone”, my answer is that no, I do not see DNA as a “code” in the relevant sense. It is simply a pattern of matter that interacts in a particular way. One may somewhat cartoonishly refer to it as a “blueprint” for an organism, just as one can talk about the “laws” of physics, or nature “hating” a vacuum. But that does not mean that someone is hanging out enforcing the laws of physics, or that nature complains about vacuums behind their backs, or that someone sat down and drew up the “blueprint”.

Evolution: Life, the universe, and everything has no purpose; it just is. Head in sand. Don’t confuse me with the evidence, or the facts, as I’m happy in my ignorance.

And I didn’t accuse you of basing a conclusion on a premise, I accused you of using your conclusion as your premise. I am not saying, “Life evolved, therefore all life is evidence of evolution, therefore there is overwhelming that life evolved, therefore life evolved.” You, on the other hand, often say what amounts to, “God made everything, therefore God’s hallmark is on everything, therefore there is evidence of God’s creation everywhere, therefore God made everything.”

More semantics by Ryan. You ignore the evidence – I embrace it. Part of the reason for my belief in God is the evidence of His creation. You attempt to twist my words; I attempt to get you to look at the evidence. The evidence points to design; the design points to a designer; the designer reveals the creator God.

And finally, DNA does not “suffer loss of information/code”. DNA changes in ways that are sometimes advantageous and most times disadvantageous for its host organism. There is no need to refer to one as “damage” or “loss”. DNA gains genes through gene duplification and mutation of a new gene can produce additional traits in the organism that may or may not give it an advantage over competition. Also, because change to the new gene is less likely to be harmful to the organism, it’s more opportunity for mutation without killing the host.

The evidence shows that DNA suffers from the loss of information/code. To get around this fact, you ignore the evidence.

Of our two religions, Ryan, at least mine stands up to the evidence; yours requires no evidence, and really is based purely on faith. It really is a religion of death, suffering, purposelessness, and ultimately judgement.
You continue to ignore the evidence to your eternal peril.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 4:21pm
Kris K

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 4:31pm
labrator

Kris you say that your evidence supports your religion but you haven’t offered any outside of the Bible. You also say there is no evidence supporting evolution or the age of the earth. Radio carbon dating comes to mind.

You also use the second law of thermodynamics to indicate that evolution can’t be true. The second law of thermodynamics applies to macroscopic systems, not to microscopic and below. As DNA is made of molecules it is therefore covered by quantum physics. If you say that there can be no added information in DNA and that all replication inherently involves “loss of information” how to you explain the study of virus’? Due to their very short life cycles they are a test bed for evolutionary theory as what evolutionists say takes millions of years for human kind to be effected by takes considerably less time in the virus life cycle. Perhaps you could look into that to find out why we don’t have less virus’ over time as your theory propounds but instead we have more and stronger ones, H1N1 for example. Additionally have you ever met a Down Syndrome person? They’re afflicted with having additional information in their DNA. In this case it is not necessarily beneficial but who’s to say that similar instances have not occurred where it is very beneficial.

As an aside, I see no information in DNA that had to be put there by a creator, the same way I see no information in the path of a river as it flows to the sea. It’s taken the easiest route, so has evolution.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 23, 2009 6:32pm
Kris K

labrator 6:32 pm,

Kris you say that your evidence supports your religion but you haven’t offered any outside of the Bible. You also say there is no evidence supporting evolution or the age of the earth. Radio carbon dating comes to mind.

Actually, I have used very little, if any, Biblical ‘evidence’ intentionally.
Carbon Dating – let’s look at it objectively:

• From Wikipedia: Even science accepts that at best C14 is only good to about 60,000 years for the purposes of dating carbonaceous materials.

• To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.

• [same link] Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

“The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

But even taking the scientifically accepted 60,000 year limit for Carbon Dating shows that NOTHING can be proved to be older than this time frame. Carbon Dating, even if accurate, doesn’t establish the million/billions of years required for evolution.

You also use the second law of thermodynamics to indicate that evolution can’t be true. The second law of thermodynamics applies to macroscopic systems, not to microscopic and below. As DNA is made of molecules it is therefore covered by quantum physics. If you say that there can be no added information in DNA and that all replication inherently involves “loss of information” how to you explain the study of virus’? Due to their very short life cycles they are a test bed for evolutionary theory as what evolutionists say takes millions of years for human kind to be effected by takes considerably less time in the virus life cycle. Perhaps you could look into that to find out why we don’t have less virus’ over time as your theory propounds but instead we have more and stronger ones, H1N1 for example. Additionally have you ever met a Down Syndrome person? They’re afflicted with having additional information in their DNA. In this case it is not necessarily beneficial but who’s to say that similar instances have not occurred where it is very beneficial.

And evolution certainly fails regarding the 2nd Law at the macro level. That all living things die and decay is an example of this. But I never said that DNA is necessarily subject to the 2nd Law. Your mentioning of Quantum Physics as the possible ‘driver’ for DNA, etc actually introduces another problem for evolutionary theory, and certainly doesn’t solve the DNA issue.

Modern science, and indeed evolution, has no answer for Quantum Physics either:

Philosophical consequences:

Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debate and many interpretations. Even fundamental issues such as Max Born’s basic rules concerning probability amplitudes and probability distributions took decades to be appreciated.

The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement (this dislike is the source of his famous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe.”). Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and that, consequently, the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local realistic theories. Experiments have been performed confirming the accuracy of quantum mechanics, thus demonstrating that the physical world cannot be described by local realistic theories.[44] The Bohr-Einstein debates provide a vibrant critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation from an epistemological point of view.

To try and address some of the issues regarding the probablistic nature of QP, and whether or not an ‘observer’ affected the probablistic outcome, Schrödinger came up with his Schrödinger’s cat analogy:

Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment, often described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. In the course of developing this experiment, he coined the term Verschränkung — literally, entanglement.

Quotations by Physicists re: Quantum Physics, etc.:

• For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. – Niels Bohr
• …the “paradox” is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.” – Richard Feynman
• I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. – Richard Feynman
• I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. – Erwin Schrödinger
• God does not play dice with the cosmos. – Albert Einstein (several variants exist)
• Do not presume to tell God what to do. – Niels Bohr, In response to Albert Einstein’s quote.
• Anyone wanting to discuss a quantum mechanical problem had better understand and learn to apply quantum mechanics to that problem. – Willis Lamb, Nobel Laureate 1955
• Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word. – Niels Bohr
• Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business! – Erwin Schrödinger
• A philosopher once said, ‘It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.’ Well, they don’t! – Richard P. Feynman

The following quotes by Albert Einstein:
• Marvelous, what ideas the young people have these days. But I don’t believe a word of it.
• Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One [God]. I am at all events convinced that He [God] does not play dice.
• It seems hard to look in God’s cards. But I cannot for a moment believe that He plays dice and makes use of ‘telepathic’ means (as the current quantum theory alleges He does).
• What nature demands from us is not a quantum theory or a wave theory; rather, nature demands from us a synthesis of these two views which thus far has exceeded the mental powers of physicists.
• However I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory is incompatible with the principle that physics is to represent reality in space and time, without spookish long-distance effects.

If the above quotes by eminent Physicists don’t give you pause, then nothing will.

As an aside, I see no information in DNA that had to be put there by a creator, the same way I see no information in the path of a river as it flows to the sea. It’s taken the easiest route, so has evolution.

Just like Quantum Physics above; DNA poses more questions then answers.
Indeed, neither accepted science, nor evolution can ‘answer’ these questions. And the closer we examine both, the more, like the above physicists, we come to the only conclusion that provides a reasonable answer: a Supernatural Designer is behind the constuctions and mechanisms of both QP and DNA.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 24, 2009 2:16pm
labrator

…we come to the only conclusion…

That there is the antithesis of science, just coming to a conclusion because you can’t work something out. The “oh bugger, this is too hard, it must be an unseen omnipotent force”. You’ve yet to bring any evidence forward. Science doesn’t claim to have found the answer to everything, it’s a continuing advancement. Einstein was noted for trying to come up with a unifying theory that tied God into his previous work, he failed. All of the other scientists you’re quoting are all quote old and dead, we’ve progressed a long way since then. I don’t see any quotes from any modern quantum scientists.

Anyway, I’m not sure why we’re even debating quantum physics as I just bought it up to counter your statement about the second law of thermodynamics, which made no sense. It seems like you want to use what you can of science to further your argument put conveniently disregard the rest. Any comment on the multiplication of new species of viruses?

DNA doesn’t pose any more questions than it answers in the same way a river running it’s path doesn’t pose any more questions than it answers. You’re either open to all of the possible answers or you’re not. You seem to have a hypothesis that you want to fit all of the answers to and as such they will, when you make them. That’s the first thing a real scientist has to reject, matching the answers to their solution.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 24, 2009 4:07pm
Kris K

labrator 4:07 pm,

…we come to the only conclusion…

That there is the antithesis of science, just coming to a conclusion because you can’t work something out. The “oh bugger, this is too hard, it must be an unseen omnipotent force”. You’ve yet to bring any evidence forward. Science doesn’t claim to have found the answer to everything, it’s a continuing advancement. Einstein was noted for trying to come up with a unifying theory that tied God into his previous work, he failed. All of the other scientists you’re quoting are all quote old and dead, we’ve progressed a long way since then. I don’t see any quotes from any modern quantum scientists.

Once again, there is more ‘true’ scientific evidence for ID, than there ever was, or is for evolution. Just because Einstein couldn’t make his unifying theory ‘work’, doesn’t automatically disprove God’s hand upon QP either.

Once again, read through these quotes of Einstein:
• Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One [God]. I am at all events convinced that He [God] does not play dice.
• It seems hard to look in God’s cards. But I cannot for a moment believe that He plays dice and makes use of ‘telepathic’ means (as the current quantum theory alleges He does).
• What nature demands from us is not a quantum theory or a wave theory; rather, nature demands from us a synthesis of these two views which thus far has exceeded the mental powers of physicists.
• However I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory is incompatible with the principle that physics is to represent reality in space and time, without spookish long-distance effects.

Einstein still acknowledges much discomfort (as did the others) with QP; that there is an element of the ‘supernatural’ to it.

And actually most of the scientists quoted were Einsteins peers, or were more recent*:
Willis Lamb, Nobel Laureate 1955 (b 1913 – d 2008)*
Richard P. Feynman 1965 (b 1918 – d 1988)*
Niels Bohr (1885– 1962)
Erwin Schrödinger (b 1887 – d 1961)
Albert Einstein (b 1879 – d 1955)

And we have made very little progress since ‘then’ regarding Quantum Physics.
What sources do you have to support your statement; “we’ve progressed a long way since then”?

Anyway, I’m not sure why we’re even debating quantum physics as I just bought it up to counter your statement about the second law of thermodynamics, which made no sense. It seems like you want to use what you can of science to further your argument put conveniently disregard the rest. Any comment on the multiplication of new species of viruses?

We’re discussing it because you raised it. And like the 2nd Law refutes evolution on the macro level; QP and DNA refutes evolution on the microscopic/molecular/atomic level[s].

DNA doesn’t pose any more questions than it answers in the same way a river running it’s path doesn’t pose any more questions than it answers. You’re either open to all of the possible answers or you’re not. You seem to have a hypothesis that you want to fit all of the answers to and as such they will, when you make them. That’s the first thing a real scientist has to reject, matching the answers to their solution.

Science has no answer for DNA coming about by evolutionary processes. Like you admitted before, “Science doesn’t claim to have found the answer to everything.” The evolutionary justification for anything it has no answer to is; “it is because it is”. Which, of course, is no justification at all – it’s just a cop out; a “we don’t know” statement. And I can similarly quote your words back to you; “You’re either open to all of the possible answers or you’re not.” And, “You seem to have a hypothesis that you want to fit all of the answers to and as such they will, when you make them.” – regarding evolution perhaps? And; “That’s the first thing a real scientist has to reject, matching the answers to their solution.” – ah, evolution again?

The sooner you guys recognise that evolution is a ‘religion’, and that it requires more ‘faith’ to adhere to it than Christianity ever has, or ever will – then perhaps you’ll be able to ‘see’ the real evidence (and I do mean scientific) that supports an intelligent designer behind ALL that exists.

But if you continue to worship at the altar of evolution, and blindly follow its high priests, then I fear the real truth will remain hidden to you.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2009 2:30pm
Kris K

labrator [October 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm],

Oh, yes. You didn’t refute my response to your example of Carbon Dating being an example that gives creedence to evolution.

Kris you say that your evidence supports your religion but you haven’t offered any outside of the Bible. You also say there is no evidence supporting evolution or the age of the earth. Radio carbon dating comes to mind.

I responded in my comment: October 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm.

Have a[nother] go.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2009 2:44pm
labrator

Kris, you’ve proved time and time again you’re not really interested in science where it can question your faith. I have no interest in disputing your faith, it’s none of my business but if you try and use science to prove Intelligent Design then expect to get questioned on it.

Along with your predetermined answers to all of your own questions, can I also add you have a lot of assumptions? Like what my feelings on the matter are. You’ve made it clear what yours are but I’m not sure if you’ve asked anyone in the thread if they actually believe in evolution of they’re an evolutionist. But that again fits in with your “if you’re not with me” philosophy.

Since you’re quoting the bible:
Proverbs 28:26
He who trusts in his own heart is a fool,
But he who walks wisely will be delivered.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2009 3:14pm
Kris K

labrator [October 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm],

Kris, you’ve proved time and time again you’re not really interested in science where it can question your faith. I have no interest in disputing your faith, it’s none of my business but if you try and use science to prove Intelligent Design then expect to get questioned on it.

Along with your predetermined answers to all of your own questions, can I also add you have a lot of assumptions? Like what my feelings on the matter are. You’ve made it clear what yours are but I’m not sure if you’ve asked anyone in the thread if they actually believe in evolution of they’re an evolutionist. But that again fits in with your “if you’re not with me” philosophy.

I am absolutely interested in the science – and have responded to your and others claims in the defence of the evidence that supports ID over evolution. I believe ID is able to be supported purely on the basis of scientific fact – no faith required – and this is the point of this debate.
When I refute your claim that Carbon Dating supports evolution, you don’t even take the time to respond.
Where you have asked me questions (Carbon Dating, 2nd Law, Quantum Physics, DNA) I have responded in detail. Then you accuse me of being “not really interested in [the] science where it can question your faith”

As we’re debating the evidence for/against ID and evolution, I understand that because you make such statement as, “You also say there is no evidence supporting evolution or the age of the earth. Radio carbon dating comes to mind.”, you in fact adhere to the Theory of Evolution? Is this a false understanding on my part? Why would you make such a statement if you do not believe in this theory?

I can only come to the conclusion that you’re not really interested in debating the point any further once I offer any form of refutation. Correct me if I’m wrong. If you reject ID, and I have falsely understood your support for evolution, then what do you in fact believe? I didn’t realise there existed a third option – please enlighten me.

And regarding your bible verse; Prov 28:26,
I don’t trust my own heart, but rather the evidence that I’m confronted with – scientifically regarding ID; and Biblically regarding spiritual things.

Please feel free to clarify any wrong ‘assumptions’ I’ve made; either regarding your ‘beliefs’, or the science I presented in support of my views.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2009 8:32am
expat

Nothing more boring than a preaching fundie.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2009 8:44am
Luc Hansen

Kris, your stance can be best summed up in far fewer words than you employ here. Just as Descartes cut to the chase in a proof of man’s existence, “I think, therefore I am,” you can surely be just as succinct.

How about:

I am a faith addict

or, even briefer

I believe.

No matter what.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2009 11:49am
Ryan Sproull

But your worldview is assumed fact – ‘millions of years old’.
I don’t blame you, it’s just that to be consistant if your foundation is assumed to be fact, but is not, then the rest is just a house of cards. And unsubstantiated belief is just ‘faith’ – which of course is consistant with evolution being a religion rather than science.

I have found the evidence for a millions-year-old earth compelling and convincing. It’s a substantiated belief.

And likewise, it’s not a problem to me that your ‘belief’ assumes millions of years, and makes no sense in the context of the evidence. It is clear to me that the earth is much younger than can be substantiated by evolution. And if you honestly attempt to understand what I am saying, you must understand that a millions-year-old earth is not able to be substantiated based on the evidence that I’m confronted with.

That’s fine, but we’re not talking about what you believe. I am defending my views from you attempting to pick holes in them.

While I agree in the sense that there is no purpose to evolution, to say that I fundamentally misunderstand evolution is disengenuous. I understand it perfectly – especially in it’s attempts to excuse men of their sexual mores and ultimate accountability to God. To imply that ‘higher life forms’ (eg Man) are not more advanced than the slime he is meant to have come from, actually ignores the claims and explanations that evoltion is the justification for all life.

Again, “more advanced” is a value judgement that has no place in the matter. Again you talk about evolution as if it’s moving towards something, or getting “better”. It’s not. What tends to survive, tends to survive. That’s it.

It really is a cop-out, Ryan, to say that evolution happens because it happens. And even though it flies in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, common sense, and evidence which means there must be external energy/information input – but of course you say there is none, just reveals what a crock the whole thing really is.

The sun is external to the system of the earth. If you think that the second law of thermodynamics means there can’t be any energy transfer from one place to another, you can stop worrying about sunscreen.

Kay sera sera, what ever will be, will be – a purposless, non evidence based, Godless contrivance.

I don’t see the purpose of a statement like this in a constructive discussion.

Evolution: Life, the universe, and everything has no purpose; it just is. Head in sand. Don’t confuse me with the evidence, or the facts, as I’m happy in my ignorance.

And again. I respond thoughtfully with an explanation that I invested some effort into, and you ignore it with this kind of statement.

More semantics by Ryan. You ignore the evidence – I embrace it. Part of the reason for my belief in God is the evidence of His creation. You attempt to twist my words; I attempt to get you to look at the evidence. The evidence points to design; the design points to a designer; the designer reveals the creator God.

Kris, you have yet to respond to anything I’ve said in my long post. You can’t just keep saying “You ignore the evidence” while refusing to respond to anything I say about evidence. You can’t just keep saying “You attempt to twist my words” while refusing to respond to my very clear explanations of where you seem to be misunderstanding evolution.

The evidence shows that DNA suffers from the loss of information/code. To get around this fact, you ignore the evidence.

Kris, READ WHAT I WROTE. THEN RESPOND. I gave you an example of DNA gaining more of what you call “information” and you just blatantly ignored it. What am I supposed to think of that? I went out and spent time out of my day finding you an example of what you said didn’t exist, and then you COMPLETELY IGNORE IT and simply repeat what you’d said before. What on earth am I supposed to think of that?

Of our two religions, Ryan, at least mine stands up to the evidence; yours requires no evidence, and really is based purely on faith. It really is a religion of death, suffering, purposelessness, and ultimately judgement.
You continue to ignore the evidence to your eternal peril.

Kris, until you respond to what I actually said instead of just repeating over and over what you believe, and until you do me the simple courtesy of paying even a little attention to the effort I put in to finding examples of DNA “gaining information”, as you put it, I really don’t care what you think about evidence or faith. By your fruits.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 9:09am
Kris K

Luc Hansen 11:49 am,

Kris, your stance can be best summed up in far fewer words than you employ here. Just as Descartes cut to the chase in a proof of man’s existence, “I think, therefore I am,” you can surely be just as succinct.

That’s the trouble, Luc; most adherents to evolution don’t think. And of course a non-thinking stone still exists – is that not problematic for both your and Descates’ claim?
Nothing made everything? Or something made everything? More faith is required to believe the former than the later; and the evidence supports the latter over the former.

How about:
I am a faith addict
or, even briefer
I believe.
No matter what.

Are you talking about the typical evolution’s claim here?
I believe (in Evolution), no matter what – don’t confuse me with the evidence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 9:11am
expat

whats with all the religious fringe falling into orbit here?

Get a room and take there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 9:15am
Kris K

Morning Ryan,

We did it again. You posted while I was responding to Luc.
Hope you had a good weekend.
I haven’t even read through your comment yet – back to you shortly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 9:19am
Ryan Sproull

It was a good weekend. I find that I am now engaged.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 9:22am
Pete George

It seems that most believers know the difference…

Beliefnet.com conducted a public opinion poll of their web site visitors. They were asked to respond to the following statement:
“I believe that intelligent design is a:
11% Science
89% Religious philosophy

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evid7.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 9:38am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull [October 27th, 2009 at 9:09 am],

I have found the evidence for a millions-year-old earth compelling and convincing. It’s a substantiated belief.

And I can echo the sentiment of your statement back to you regarding ID. And based on the evidence claim that it is more substantive than a belief in evolution.

That’s fine, but we’re not talking about what you believe. I am defending my views from you attempting to pick holes in them.

All I’m saying is that most/all arguments supporting evoltion start with the premise of ‘huge’ time-spans – as you do. This premise is no more than a statement of ‘faith’, and is not evidential. The [scientific] evidence that confronts me points to ‘short’ time-spans, and life, for example, coming about in fully defined kinds. eg Dog-kind, Man-kind, etc.

And I actually thought it was you trying to pick holes in my arguments which I’m defending. But ok, I just thought you’d reverted back to your position of faith – apologies if I’m wrong on this count.

Again, “more advanced” is a value judgement that has no place in the matter. Again you talk about evolution as if it’s moving towards something, or getting “better”. It’s not. What tends to survive, tends to survive. That’s it.

Ryan, if we’re debating between evolution and ID, then whether or not something is “more advanced” is entirely central to the debate, surely? Your argument that this is not the case further supports my argument that evolution is a faith based philosophy. You may ‘believe’ that something is not “more advanced”, but this is a statement of faith, pure and simple. No doubt you will turn this argument on its head and accuse me making a faith based claim. But my belief in ID is more firmly founded upon [non-assumptive] scientific evidence.

The sun is external to the system of the earth. If you think that the second law of thermodynamics means there can’t be any energy transfer from one place to another, you can stop worrying about sunscreen.

You only move your problem back one step; where did the sun’s energy come from?
And, of course, if the universe is the closed system, then there is no problem regarding energy transference from the sun to the earth from a thermodynamic stance.

I don’t see the purpose of a statement like this in a constructive discussion.

Exactly my point, Ryan. Your claim that evolution has no purpose is a statement of ‘faith’. I mean, if one really wanted to get pedantic, we could argue that this conversation, our research, our thought processes are all, in fact, without purpose from an evolutionary stance. This ultimately implies that any conclusions we may reach are also without purpose. But as I come from a different stance, I believe that there is a purpose behind our discussion and efforts.

And again. I respond thoughtfully with an explanation that I invested some effort into, and you ignore it with this kind of statement.

I did not simply ‘gloss over’ your argument, and I apologise if you think I did. I will revisit it.

Kris, you have yet to respond to anything I’ve said in my long post. You can’t just keep saying “You ignore the evidence” while refusing to respond to anything I say about evidence. You can’t just keep saying “You attempt to twist my words” while refusing to respond to my very clear explanations of where you seem to be misunderstanding evolution.

Sometimes I feel, Ryan, that you also ignore my evidence, and that you DO twist my words – but I will have another look.

Kris, READ WHAT I WROTE. THEN RESPOND. I gave you an example of DNA gaining more of what you call “information” and you just blatantly ignored it. What am I supposed to think of that? I went out and spent time out of my day finding you an example of what you said didn’t exist, and then you COMPLETELY IGNORE IT and simply repeat what you’d said before. What on earth am I supposed to think of that?

Kris, until you respond to what I actually said instead of just repeating over and over what you believe, and until you do me the simple courtesy of paying even a little attention to the effort I put in to finding examples of DNA “gaining information”, as you put it, I really don’t care what you think about evidence or faith. By your fruits.

Sometimes I feel you also just keep repeating your faith based justifications for evolution regarding its assumed ‘lack of purpose’, and assumed ‘huge’ time-spans. And like you I also invested a large amount of time in my responses; hence perhaps my becoming frustrated with what I thought was you fobbing off some of my points. I am trying to argue purely from an observable, objective, scientific perspective – so I would appreciate you doing the same by not founding your justifications upon faith based evolutionary claims. Once again, I will revisit your earlier comment.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 10:51am
Ryan Sproull

Kris,

I have given reasons for everything I have said. If I have not on some point, challenge me on it and I will back it up.

Nothing in my worldview is faith-based in the sense of being unsupported, except for the very most fundamental things – for example, that logic has some relevance to truth.

I haven’t provided reasons for believing in a millions-year-old earth, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have them. You haven’t asked for them. You poked a hole in evolution that only makes sense if you assume a young earth, then accused me of using a cop-out when I pointed out that my worldview includes an old earth. If you want to shift the discussion to include the age of the world/universe, then let’s do that.

My reasons for believing the earth is older than 6000 years include radiometric dating, continental shift, and the lack of any compelling evidence to believe differently.

Ryan, if we’re debating between evolution and ID, then whether or not something is “more advanced” is entirely central to the debate, surely?

No, it’s not. Not from my perspective. That’s like saying that whether or not evolution is “more grammatical” is entirely central to the debate. To talk about life becoming “more advanced” is to make assumptions that do not exist in my worldview, and to make judgements that are nonsensical to me. Some life has barely changed in millions of years, not because it is “advanced” enough, but simply because there’s been no cause for it to change.

Evolutionarily speaking, a fish is no better than a bacterium, a cat is no better than a fish, a human is no better than a cat, and a bacterium is no better than a human. They’re all different ways life persists.

If you claim that one kind of life is “more advanced” than another, then please explain what you mean by “advanced”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 11:15am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 11:15 am,

Ok then.
As I believe we can both agree that the fundamental differences between evolution and ID are:
• Huge versus small time-spans.
• Whether living things ‘evolve’ [improve?] or are in fact fixed within their ‘kind’ groupings.
[We can ignore other evidence relating to non living matter at this stage except where it supports out ‘time-span’ justifications]

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to first work through these differences, rather than argue at cross purposes.
What do you think?

For instance, we could consider the justifications for our respective time-span arguments first[?]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 11:42am
Ryan Sproull

I agree, Kris, and I’m happy with that list. Evolution is change, without the need to refer to “improvement”. But those would be the two main differences. You don’t want to add a sort of “evidence of design” item?

Time span first, go for it. How old do you think the earth is, and why?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 11:46am
MyNameIsJack

I don’t want to but in, but Maybe Kris K could start here, and if you still believe in god, then you have a faith, nothing more, nothing less. No reason, no rationality, just blind faith in the non-existent god.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/could-it-be-pretty-obvious-theres-no.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 11:57am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull [Tuesday, 27 October 2009 11:46 a.m.],

I agree, Kris, and I’m happy with that list. Evolution is change, without the need to refer to “improvement”. But those would be the two main differences. You don’t want to add a sort of “evidence of design” item?

Time span first, go for it. How old do you think the earth is, and why?

Ok.
I accept that you’ll be coming from the ‘change’ perspective, whereas I’ll be coming from the [anti] improvement angle – but that’s ok.
I will try to justify the evidence for design angle from a non faith perspective – purely scientific.
And likewise my ‘short’ time-span justification.
I guess that both of us may put up different hypothesesis to justify ‘what works best’ from our perspective – hard to avoid I suppose.

Righto –
Short Time-span Justification:
Purely from the Bible I believe that the earth/creation is ~6000 years old; but I believe the science supports the ‘creation’ [I’ll refer to it that way just for ease] only being in the order of tens of thousands of years old.
I’ll just out line my justifications at this point and will need to come back with the supporting evidence/data.

• Short length of recorded human history (generally accepted as less than 6000 years)
• Various gas concentrations in the atmosphere, etc
• degree of salinity of oceans and erosion of land masses
• degree of fossilisation/petrification of living/natural material

I’ll start with these just off the top of my head, but may add others as I get into sourcing my data.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 12:15pm
Ryan Sproull

Okay, Kris, go for it. Explain each of those points and how they are evidence for a ~6000-year-old earth. (The term “creation” is fine with me, as it makes sense in the context you’re explaining.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 12:18pm
Pete George

As I believe we can both agree that the fundamental differences between evolution and ID are:
• Huge versus small time-spans.

I don’t agree with this.

Obviously evolution requires a long timespan. But ID could be either short (if you believe that it would be possible to design and implement something so diverse and complex as the universe and life on earth in a short time), or it could take a long time as well (it would be a huge task), or it could have been done a long time ago.

Kris, are you are pushing for a young earth because that rules out evolution, or because you think that is what the bible says, or both?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 12:21pm
Kris K

Pete George 12:21 pm,

As I believe we can both agree that the fundamental differences between evolution and ID are:
• Huge versus small time-spans.

I don’t agree with this.

Obviously evolution requires a long timespan. But ID could be either short (if you believe that it would be possible to design and implement something so diverse and complex as the universe and life on earth in a short time), or it could take a long time as well (it would be a huge task), or it could have been done a long time ago.

Kris, are you are pushing for a young earth because that rules out evolution, or because you think that is what the bible says, or both?

Pete (and other ‘spectators’),
I’m going to try and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, rather than pushing any particular agenda. I believe Ryan will also be applying scientific rigour to substantiate his claims. This is the point – belief based on scientific evidence alone – no faith based claims from either a creationist or evolutionist perspective.

We will probably ignore comments which will take us off point – heck, I may ignore most non Ryan comments anyway – apologies in advance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 12:53pm
Kris K

Ryan,

Recorded Human History:

Wikipedia: Recorded history (sometimes called record history) is human history that has been written down or recorded by the use of language. It starts in the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing. The period before this is known as prehistory.

Ancient History is the study of the written past[1] from the beginning of recorded human history in the Old World until the Early Middle Ages[2] in Europe and the Qin Dynasty in China.[3]

The period or era following these events includes the Imperial era in China[4] and the period of the Middle Kingdoms in India;[5][6][7] The span of recorded history altogether is roughly 5,000 years, with Sumerian cuneiform emerging from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC[8] being the oldest form of writing discovered so far. This is the beginning of history, as opposed to prehistory, according to the definition used by most historians.[9]

This has always intrigued me Ryan, that we only get back to ~3,000 BC – especially in light of modern radiometric dating, etc. So even if Humans spread from East Africa to Asia some 100,000-50,000 years ago there is no recorded history from this period apart from that which originated in the last 5,000 years
So I assume we can at least agree that this is reasonably well accepted and substantiated ‘fact’.

[PS I’ll do these topic by topic to avoid multiple links in any given comment – and I may have to break these up into sub topics for the same reason.]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 1:15pm
Ryan Sproull

[PS I’ll do these topic by topic to avoid multiple links in any given comment – and I may have to break these up into sub topics for the same reason.]

Fair enough.

Why is it not possible the earth existed before recorded history?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 1:25pm
Pete George

I’m not one to just spectate Kris.

You are only referring to recorded written language. Paintings and artifacts date back long before then.

The earliest evidence of painting derives from archaeological sites in two rock-shelters in Arnhem Land, in northern Australia. In the lowest layer of material at these sites there are used pieces of ochre estimated to be 60,000 years old. Archaeologists have also found a fragment of rock painting preserved in a limestone rock-shelter in the Kimberley region of North-Western Australia dated at 40 000 years old.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 1:29pm
Kris K

Ryan,

Short Time-span Justification:
Various gas concentrations in the atmosphere, etc.

Carbon Dating; C14 [Part 1]
Carbon dating is obviously one of the tools that evolutionists use, but I believe that C14 in fact substantiates a young earth.

C14 in dead animals/plants:
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C “clock is not possible.[4]

There are too many variables to regard C14 dating as accurate prior to Recorded History (last 5,000 years), and even if we accept the 50,000 years maximum as the period by which no detectable 14C will be left, we still have a problem:

Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

This is of course a problem, as much in the way of dead animal/plant matter which evolutionists regard as being in the order of hundred of thousands, or even millions of years old still have substantive amounts of C14 – this means they must in fact be less than 50,000 years old.

For example:
DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONE FRAGMENTS:

Bone fragments from the 30 ft. long Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur, excavated by members of CEM of Glen Rose TX and CRSEF of Columbus OH (Carl Baugh, Collector), were subjected to the radiocarbon dating process at three different laboratories. Again this was an attempt to falsify the fossil foot print evidence and the successful radiocarbon dating of carbonized wood from the cretaceous period. Table 3 lists these dates and for those of four other samples from four separate excavations of other dinosaurs; three came from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh PA. As you will note the dates ranged from about 9,890 to 36,500 radiocarbon years (Beta system) before the present (B.P.).

So having dinosaur bones Carbon Dated to between 9,890 and 36,500 years ago flies in the face of ‘millions of years ago’ as evolutionists would have us believe.

[more to come]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 3:03pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 1:25 pm,

Why is it not possible the earth existed before recorded history?

It may have.

While not a proof in and of itself, it adds weight.
As I said before; “So even if Humans spread from East Africa to Asia some 100,000-50,000 years ago there is no recorded history from this period apart from that which originated in the last 5,000 years” – one would (well, me anyway) expect a far greater proportion (90-100%) of this 50-100,000 year period to be represented in the ‘Recorded History’. The fact that only the last 5,000 years are represented seems strange assuming Man of upto 100,000 years ago had the same intellect as ‘modern’ man.

Of course, if Recorded History went back to say 80,000 years ago then this would refute the ~6,000 years ago Bible timeframe for the Creation. The fact that it does not is a point of interest, if nothing else. I’m sure you would agree with me on that at least?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 3:21pm
Ryan Sproull

It may have.

While not a proof in and of itself, it adds weight.
As I said before; “So even if Humans spread from East Africa to Asia some 100,000-50,000 years ago there is no recorded history from this period apart from that which originated in the last 5,000 years” – one would (well, me anyway) expect a far greater proportion (90-100%) of this 50-100,000 year period to be represented in the ‘Recorded History’. The fact that only the last 5,000 years are represented seems strange assuming Man of upto 100,000 years ago had the same intellect as ‘modern’ man.

Of course, if Recorded History went back to say 80,000 years ago then this would refute the ~6,000 years ago Bible timeframe for the Creation. The fact that it does not is a point of interest, if nothing else. I’m sure you would agree with me on that at least?

If recorded history went back earlier than the date you claim the world was created, then yes, that would refute your claim (unless the world was created with premade recorded history). What about manmade prehistoric art?

For example, 12,000-year-old etching, 70,000-year-old etching, 40,000-year-old statue, or petroglyphs at least 10,000 years old?

I think that the lack of recorded history before a certain point in the past is not evidence against an old earth, because no old-earth theories that I know of claim that man must inevitably begin to write the moment the capabilities are there for him to write. It was a development that caught on once it had been come up with, but prior to writing there would have been oral traditions of history, and before that no thought of history at all (busy finding food, raising kids, etc).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 3:36pm
Ryan Sproull

As for radiocarbon dating, that’s not used for time periods over 50,000-60,000 years. The age of the earth was determined through uranium-lead dating, not carbon dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Modern_radiometric_dating
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 3:49pm
Pete George

The fact that only the last 5,000 years are represented seems strange assuming Man of up to 100,000 years ago had the same intellect as ‘modern’ man.

That’s a strange assumption to make, but I guess it depends on what you see as intellect. Is the human intellect now any different to that of 2000 years ago? They didn’t have computers, cars, aeroplanes, electricity, or ball point pens 2000 years ago. Isn’t it possible that humans developed the ability to write 5000-6000 years ago? And developed the ability to paint pictures say 60,000 years ago. And make stone tools from about a couple of million years ago?

Sedimentary layers also give a lot of clues to approximate age.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 3:49pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 3:36 pm,

If recorded history went back earlier than the date you claim the world was created, then yes, that would refute your claim (unless the world was created with premade recorded history). What about manmade prehistoric art?

For example, 12,000-year-old etching, 70,000-year-old etching, 40,000-year-old statue, or petroglyphs at least 10,000 years old?

Once again, this raises the issue regarding dating methods (geological column, radiometric, etc), and may be better dealt with later in that context. Your four examples simply stated the dates in relation to the last Ice Age, the Middle Stone Age, etc. Perhaps this would warrant a section dedicated to itself – ‘Ages of the Earth’. Just to keep things tidy and not to get side tracked before we’ve left the last topic behind.

I think that the lack of recorded history before a certain point in the past is not evidence against an old earth, because no old-earth theories that I know of claim that man must inevitably begin to write the moment the capabilities are there for him to write. It was a development that caught on once it had been come up with, but prior to writing there would have been oral traditions of history, and before that no thought of history at all (busy finding food, raising kids, etc).

While I agree, it is also not evidence against a relatively Young Earth. Oral traditions may be one explanation – but that’s still upto at least 95,000 of a possible 100,000 years of purely oral over written tradition. I’m not making a big deal about it, it’s more of an interesting observation. 5,000 years just isn’t long in evolutionary terms, or even in terms of the ‘accepted’ wisdom regarding modern man’s history. Oral tradition also doesn’t necessarily disprove that man once had an earlier written tradition which he subsequently lost, perhaps, due to the lack of portability of the recording medium – hence oral became more practical for a period intil he established new permanent settlements.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 4:16pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 3:49 pm,

As for radiocarbon dating, that’s not used for time periods over 50,000-60,000 years. The age of the earth was determined through uranium-lead dating, not carbon dating.

I think if you re-read my 3:03 pm comment you’ll see that I’ve already stated that Carbon Dating is only good to ~50,ooo years – did you miss it? I think you may have misconstrued the point I was making. Can you go over it again and address the point I raised regarding dinosaurs in the context of Carbon Dating. There really is no point even considering uranium-lead dating at this juncture.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 4:26pm
Ryan Sproull

While I agree, it is also not evidence against a relatively Young Earth. Oral traditions may be one explanation – but that’s still upto at least 95,000 of a possible 100,000 years of purely oral over written tradition. I’m not making a big deal about it, it’s more of an interesting observation. 5,000 years just isn’t long in evolutionary terms, or even in terms of the ‘accepted’ wisdom regarding modern man’s history. Oral tradition also doesn’t necessarily disprove that man once had an earlier written tradition which he subsequently lost, perhaps, due to the lack of portability of the recording medium – hence oral became more practical for a period intil he established new permanent settlements.

And certain ideas had to occur to humans before any of those prerequisites were possible. Fire had to be harnessed, for a start. Fencing animals and raising them instead of following herds wherever they went. Cultivating plants instead of foraging. Humans could have gone on for thousands of years without these things occurring to them, but once they did, it sparked a series of other developments as a result.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 5:19pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 5:19 pm,

And certain ideas had to occur to humans before any of those prerequisites were possible. Fire had to be harnessed, for a start. Fencing animals and raising them instead of following herds wherever they went. Cultivating plants instead of foraging. Humans could have gone on for thousands of years without these things occurring to them, but once they did, it sparked a series of other developments as a result.

While I know what you’re saying, we are starting to assume that these things had to ‘occur’ to Man as he ‘evolved’, or dare I say ‘improved/progressed’ so that he better suited his environment. Whether these things/skills (fire, transitioning from hunting/gathering to farming, etc) were developed in an evolutionary type progression, or whether different methods were simply employed as and when required. For instance, for half of the year man hunted/gathered, while for the other half he relocated and farmed. Or small groups went out seasonally to hunt while some remained back at the farm to tend crops/animals. So while man had a full ‘toolbox’ at his disposal, he only drew out the tools required at the given time to suit the given task at hand.

I am just suggesting this in contrast to the ‘assumed’ evolutionary type ‘progression’ that is usually tabled as fact.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2009 6:16pm
Ryan Sproull

I think if you re-read my 3:03 pm comment you’ll see that I’ve already stated that Carbon Dating is only good to ~50,ooo years – did you miss it? I think you may have misconstrued the point I was making. Can you go over it again and address the point I raised regarding dinosaurs in the context of Carbon Dating. There really is no point even considering uranium-lead dating at this juncture.

Why are we concerned about dinosaurs? If we’re talking about the age of the earth, isn’t the dating of the actual earth more relevant?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:03am
Pete George

Age of Earth?

The oldest rocks which have been found so far date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth’s age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204).

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites.

Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system “model lead age” produced earlier.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:19am
Ryan Sproull

While I know what you’re saying, we are starting to assume that these things had to ‘occur’ to Man as he ‘evolved’, or dare I say ‘improved/progressed’ so that he better suited his environment. Whether these things/skills (fire, transitioning from hunting/gathering to farming, etc) were developed in an evolutionary type progression, or whether different methods were simply employed as and when required. For instance, for half of the year man hunted/gathered, while for the other half he relocated and farmed. Or small groups went out seasonally to hunt while some remained back at the farm to tend crops/animals. So while man had a full ‘toolbox’ at his disposal, he only drew out the tools required at the given time to suit the given task at hand.

I am just suggesting this in contrast to the ‘assumed’ evolutionary type ‘progression’ that is usually tabled as fact.

Also entirely possible. All I mean is that (biologically) modern man could continue on for a long time without settling down, and that once those behaviours arose and were passed on that made settling possible, a whole new range of behaviours became possible (including writing).

So it’s inevitable that, in the context of evolution, recorded history would only go back so far.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 9:20am
Ryan Sproull

Here’s another one for you, Kris.

Cornell researchers have discovered a genetic mechanism in fruit flies that prevents two closely related species from reproducing, a finding that offers clues to how species evolve.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 28, 2009 4:50pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull [October 28th, 2009 at 9:03 am],

I think if you re-read my 3:03 pm comment you’ll see that I’ve already stated that Carbon Dating is only good to ~50,ooo years – did you miss it? I think you may have misconstrued the point I was making. Can you go over it again and address the point I raised regarding dinosaurs in the context of Carbon Dating. There really is no point even considering uranium-lead dating at this juncture.

Why are we concerned about dinosaurs? If we’re talking about the age of the earth, isn’t the dating of the actual earth more relevant?

Sorry about yesterday – computer issues.

While I’m happy to explore your uranium-lead dating of the earth, I’d really like to thrash out the Carbon Dating method first – as this sort of sets the tone for other subsequent dating methods which followed it.
I only used the Dinosaurs as typical of ex-living matter in regards to Carbon Dating, and will touch on atmospheric carbon (14), etc in subsequent parts – Dinosaurs coming under; Carbon Dating; C14 [Part 1] – my 3:03 pm comment of the 27th.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 10:54am
Kris K

Ryan Sproull [October 28th, 2009 at 9:20 am],

Also entirely possible. All I mean is that (biologically) modern man could continue on for a long time without settling down, and that once those behaviours arose and were passed on that made settling possible, a whole new range of behaviours became possible (including writing).

So it’s inevitable that, in the context of evolution, recorded history would only go back so far.

I think to say “it’s inevitable” is perhaps a little strong – to say that ‘it’s a possibility’ is perhaps more prudent. Once again you’re assuming evolution to be fact.
Of couse the other ‘possibility’ is that man has been on the earth for little more than 5,000 years.

An example I’ve heard put forward regarding the ‘progression’ from simple to more complex hunting tools, is explained by reason of convenience. Following the Flood (we can look at this specifically later), with a vastly different environment, when man pursued his prey he likely made his (stone) tools on the job ie once he caught up with his prey. This would enable him to ‘travel light’, quickly make his spears, knives, etc once he caught up to his prey, and then slaughter, skin, preserve said prey prior to returning to the main settlements with his catch. Tools used for this ‘hunt’ would be crude and disposed of following the kill and processing of the animals. Of course more complex and permanent tools would be retained at these settlements.

This is one explanation for the so-called development of tool complexity.

Following the global Flood man would have struggled for a while until he adequately regrouped and re-established his earlier society with all its complexity.
A simplistic example would be to drop a 21st century man on a desert island with very little resources – we would likely see a similar progression over a period of time – although we’d be unlikely to see him with an operational computer any time soon, despite his having a working knowledge of one prior to being castaway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 11:42am
Kris K

Ryan, [cont. from Part 1]

Short Time-span Justification:
Various gas concentrations in the atmosphere, etc.

Carbon Dating; C14 [Part 2] Carbon 14 in the atmosphere

30,000 year limit to Carbon dating

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that. (1)

Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949. Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. (1)

– What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! (1)

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1)

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.

What was the original amount of Carbon in the atmosphere?

Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material
(“Radioisotopes and the age of the earth” pg v)

We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
( “Radioisotopes and the age of the earth” pg vii)

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It’s like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.

Carbon dates they did not like

Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists.
Here are some Carbon 14 dates that were rejected because they did not agree with evolution:

• Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.
• The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)
• The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! (“The Illustrated Origins Answer Book” by Paul Taylor)
• What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)
Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.
A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)
• Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)

The fact that Carbon Dating actually supports a young earth rather than evolution is a continual bug-bear to evolutionary ‘scientists’.
Purely based on the science, Carbon Dating is just another Achilles heal to evolution. And as we consider the other Radiometric Dating methods we will see that they also suffer from the same assumptions and the same bad science.

I’m interested, Ryan, in your explanation regarding C14 in dead animals/plants (parts 1&2), and Atmospheric C14 (part 2), and the fact that they both support a young (<10,000 – 30,000 years) earth. And that C14 destroys much of the evolutionary assumed time-spans (millions/billions of years).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 12:26pm
Brian Smaller

Jesus Christ Kris and Ryan. I was sitting there about to have lunch and BAM, I got zapped by you bastards again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 12:41pm
Pete George

Beware of carbon dating – it can lead to much more cost than just the diamond.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 1:01pm
Ryan Sproull

Very busy at work today, sorry. But quickly:

Carbon dating is not used to date dinosaur fossils, for exactly the limitation you talk about. They’re dated by the rock they’re found in, which is either dated by its position in the rock layers or absolute-dated by radio-isotopes in the rock itself. I’m not sure who told you that carbon dating is used to determine the age of million-year-old fossils.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 2:12pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull 2:12 pm,

Very busy at work today, sorry. But quickly:

Carbon dating is not used to date dinosaur fossils, for exactly the limitation you talk about. They’re dated by the rock they’re found in, which is either dated by its position in the rock layers or absolute-dated by radio-isotopes in the rock itself. I’m not sure who told you that carbon dating is used to determine the age of million-year-old fossils.

No worries – we’ve got till I’m raptured out of here at least.

Indeed, but of course if they fit in with the Biblical account one would expect to have dinosaur bones dating to within the ‘accuracy’ range of Carbon Dating; as i said before, up to 10,000 – 30,000 years ago. Once again, Ryan, you’re limiting yourself by your “million-year-old fossils” assumption dressed up as fact – a common evolutionary mistake when looking at the evidence at hand.

I’m happy to later touch on the Geological Column and other Radiometric dating methods, and their associated evolutionary bias and errors – should be fun!

I’ll check back from time to time for your Carbon Dating refutation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 3:34pm
Kris K

Brian Smaller 12:41 pm,

Jesus Christ Kris and Ryan. I was sitting there about to have lunch and BAM, I got zapped by you bastards again.

Jesus Christ get’s blamed for a lot in our modern society, Brian.
The only thing I ‘blame’ Him for is His being the author of creation; and the One who created me.
The rest we can pretty much blame on Man for his rejecting the one true God – IMHO anyway.

I encourage you to look at the evidence, as Ryan and I continue to debate (zap you), and come to your own conclusions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 3:44pm
Ryan Sproull

Kris, there’s no carbon-dating claim to refute. No one is saying that carbon-dating of fossils shows that they are millions of years old. The uranium-dating of the rocks around them is how they are dated. You’ll have to move on to other radiometric dating methods and the geological column, because that’s where the discussion lies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 29, 2009 4:08pm
Kris K

Ryan Sproull [October 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm],

Kris, there’s no carbon-dating claim to refute. No one is saying that carbon-dating of fossils shows that they are millions of years old.

But one of us IS saying that Crabon Dating fossils shows they are in fact 10s of thousands years old – slight difference.

The uranium-dating of the rocks around them is how they are dated. You’ll have to move on to other radiometric dating methods and the geological column, because that’s where the discussion lies.

Disagree.
Typical evolution smoke and mirrors response, Ryan. You can’t just ignore CD because it doesn’t suit your pet theory. The fact that you’re not prepared to even debate it says a lot. What are you afraid of?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2009 3:51pm
Ryan Sproull

Typical evolution smoke and mirrors response, Ryan. You can’t just ignore CD because it doesn’t suit your pet theory. The fact that you’re not prepared to even debate it says a lot. What are you afraid of?

Kris, we’re talking about the age of the earth. The earth is not aged with carbon-dating. Nor are dinosaur fossils aged with carbon-dating, but that doesn’t even matter, because we’re talking about the age of the earth, not the age of dinosaur fossils.

I would be happy to talk about the age of dinosaur fossils when we have a discussion about that, and if you would like to continue to avoid talking about the age of the earth and switch the discussion to the new one of the dating of dinosaur fossils, that’s fine. Say so, but don’t accuse me of avoiding a topic for refusing to go off-topic.

I am ignoring CD because it is irrelevant to the question of the age of the earth, which is what we’re talking about. You seem to be concentrating on it because you have something to say about carbon-dating, which suggests that you have nothing to say about the actual methods of dating the earth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2009 3:58pm
Kris K

Ryan [October 30th, 2009 at 3:58 pm],

As you previously agreed with “Various gas concentrations in the atmosphere” [as outlined in my October 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm comment], then perhaps you’d be good enough to respond to my October 29th, 2009 at 12:26 pm comment –

Short Time-span Justification:
Various gas concentrations in the atmosphere, etc.

Carbon Dating; C14 [Part 2] Carbon 14 in the atmosphere

As were dealing with Carbon 14 I want to come back to Carbon Dating Part 1 immediately following your response to Part 2. I’m not doing any more research just for you to throw it back in my face.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 30, 2009 6:46pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Gutted

Will TVNZ buy more Sensing Murder »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Javier Milei’s Chainsaw on Bureaucracy
Not PC
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
#climateemergency
Utopia
Do The Health Authorities Require Too Much From a GP?
No Minister
The h?koi was M?ori Party’s crowning glory – and provided plenty for Labour to think about
Point of Order
It’s National ACT NZF who are Dishonouring the Treaty + the day Moana Jackson knocked Gerry Brownlee on his bum
The Daily Blog
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d