Search This Blog

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Jeepers, Creeper! Creationist answers Darwinist

1. Mitochondrial Eve:

”it is of great interest that the famous "Mitochondrial Eve" would be calculated to have lived about 6,500 years ago by rather straightforward dating of the "mutation clock" used to determine how long ago she lived. Eve, the mother of all living humans, just as the Bible says. Darwinists use other methods to determine the dating of "Eve", usually coming up with a date of about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.”

While this matter is still far from settled, I take it you are aware that this calculation of 6500 years is based on a number of underlying assumptions, including (1) man and ape sharing a common ancestor, and (2) radiometric dating being accepted as accurate. Do you accept these assumptions? If you don’t, then how can you accept their result?

What do you make of the most recent common ancestor from whom the X-chromosomes of all people alive today descended, which indicates a much longer time? This should also indicate no more than 6500 years, shouldn’t it?

”They will also say that Eve was just one woman within an entire population of already existing humans.”

True, the calculation whose results you’re touting does depend on the assumption of a population of already existing humans (or proto-humans) as they split off from other evolutionary branches at an earlier time, including apes.


The mutation clock used by some predicts much different ages than those used by others. I thought it was interesting but it doesn't really prove a great deal. Much depends on your assumptions coming into the discussion and mine would be very different than yours. Again, I posted it as a note of interest.

2. ”The Noahic Flood, a world wide flood that lasted covered the entire planet for 150 days and rendered the earth unihabitable for approximately one year wiped out most of land life (not including invertabrates, microorganisms, etc) on earth. The exception is Noah, his family, and the animals that were brought with him aboard the Ark, a large boat with dimensions equivalent to that of a large ocean liner.”

How many “kinds” on the Ark would be necessary to account for the variety of life we see around us every day? How much would it take to feed them for at least a year? How much space would all this take up? Would a boat the size of a large ocean liner suffice?

”The word for creatures used here is for animals that generally have backbones, breath air, and live on the land. These are the kinds of animals that God caused to come to Noah to take with him on the Ark.”

How does “creation science” account for marine animals who were unable to live in either saltwater or freshwater, not a mix? Were there dinosaurs on the Ark, or weren’t there?


I am pretty sure that there were dinosaurs on the Ark. It appears they continued to exist up to the time of Job and perhaps beyond. There sure are enough "dragon stories" extant, plus drawings and clay models of dinosaurs that would indicate that dinosaurs lived on for some time.

I linked to my previous post that covered the subject of animals and space on the Ark. I stand by that posting.

The kinds of marine animals during the flood apparently had the abilities within their gene pools to adjust to waters that became increasingly brackish, or survive in waters that became increasingly fresh. Those abilities were naturally selected to keep the kind alive and some genetic information was doubtlessly lost in the process. The world-wide flood, with catastrophic events happening under the earth's crust and in the atmosphere as well, would have released large amounts of minerals into the oceans that were not there before in such quantities.

3. ”A world-wide flood is the kind of event that would explain the sedimentary layers of rock found around the world.”

An old earth would explain that just the same. A world-wide flood at that particular time (2348 BC) is contradicted by, for example, civilizations who were supposedly wiped out continuing to exist without a mention of the flood.


There is no reliable account of any civilization going back much beyond 4,000 some-odd years. The earlier years of such accounts have all been called into question.
Since uniformitarianism is nearly dead (other than in science textbooks and in the minds of numerous Darwinists) the sedimentary rock layers are, indeed, a problem and corollary hypotheses have had to have been submitted.

4. "It is remarkable that largely without exception all dinosaur tracks point uphill. At first, paleontologists speculated that dinosaurs of this kind always backed downhill, which in retrospect is humorous indeed!”

Could you point us to the research on this? The only pictures I’ve seen of dinosaur tracks were on level ground, but this sounds like a fascinating study.


"In the Grand Canyon, the Coconino Sandstone covers half a million square km and has a sand volume of 40,000 cubic km, and the angle of crossbeds plus other features show that it was deposited as sand waves under water. The enormous thickness shows that the waves were about 18 m high, which indicates that they were deposited under water 54 m deep, with sustained unidirectional currents of 90–155 cm/sec." The book goes on to explain the footprints in relationship to the flooding. See Grand Canyon: Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood and Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe by Stephen Austin.


5. ”A world-wide flood explains polystrate fossils and megabreccias, layers that are out of order or reversed, and other aspects of the actual layers found in the world.”

How does it explain layers being out of order, or reversed? Does it do so in a different way from “old earth” geology?


For old-earthers, a layer supposed to be 120 million years old being atop a layer supposed to be 40 million years old is always a problem. Since creationists believe the layers were left by the flood, in the ebbs and flows before the flood and the ebbs and tides at its end, all the layers are from about the same time and could be in various orders without problem.

6. ” After the flood receded and the passengers of the Ark were released, the animal population and also man spread out across the new and very different world. Many of the animal kinds that thrived in the antediluvian world were not suited to the differences in terrain and climate in the new world. “

Does this mean that the Ark not only had to carry all the “kinds” whose offspring we see around us today, but all the extinct ones as well? Golly. I guess that means we have to add a few to those 16,000 or so you mentioned earlier.


No, the kinds carried on the Ark were that of all kinds of that type. That various species have gone extinct since then is obvious. Remember, the term "kind" predates "species" by thousands of years. There are sometimes several species within one kind. God made animals with rich, varied gene pools so that they could adjust to many climactic conditions and be manipulated by man. Thus, we have modern chickens, sheep, cows, turkeys and dogs, among others. A Samoyed would be an example of managed microevolution, or variation within kind. Samoyeds were bred from others of the dog kind.

7. ” Briefly, the fossil record is full of animals of varied kinds. But a Darwinist would expect to find a continuum of animals changing from one thing into another and have to add corollary assumptions to explain why this is not so.”

No, no corollary assumptions needed. Simply the recognition that we’re not talking about orthogenesis. Allopatric speciation allows for living beings evolving into different niches and reacting to all kinds of survival pressures. An animal evolving in one direction, then reversing, then evolving in another direction is not contradictory. It simply depends on the circumstances at the time. There is no reason why “bigger” or “hairier” are always advantageous – if your environment changes, the opposite may become more advantageous.

” There are up to 29 so-called transitional form possibilities that are being studied at this time and not one of them is compelling enough for the Darwinists to present as a certain transitional animal.”

Transitional between what and what?

” The suppositions are humorous, in that whales are thought to have been large land animals who decided to go back into the sea after they had millions of years earlier decided to come onto land. Couldn't they make up their minds?”

The creatures who found the water more hospitable at one point in time, or the creatures who found the land more hospitable at a completely different point in time, under different circumstances? They weren’t the same, Radar. When they went on land, there was an advantage to that; when they went back into the sea, there was an advantage to that.

It’s like saying my great-grandfather decided to move from the countryside into the city, because it presented an advantage to him at that time, and I decided to move from the city to the countryside, because that presents an advantage to me right now. It’s nothing to do with either of us not being able to “make up our minds”.


You say no corollaries are necessary and immediately launch into one!

There is no evidence that whales were land animals that went into the sea other than the fact that flippers and legs have similar designs. Since Darwinists reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer, they then must suppose that whales once lived on land and went back to the ocean. This involves all sorts of problems which make such a thing incredibly unlikely. However, weighted down with ABG (Anything But God) they must soldier on and go through long involved explanations as to how this could have been. Meanwhile, the creationist says, the Designer has a style and this is typical of His designs.


8. ” Siimilarities between the living organisms of the world are cited as a proof of macroevolution.”

They are highly consistent with macroevolution, and large-scale dissimilarity between the living organisms of the world would be a strike against evolution, and proof for creationism.

” But I say they are the proof a a common Designer, God.”

Since we can not make any predictions about how God would design something (he works in mysterious ways, right?), we can not say that this is proof of God having designed it. Since He is all-powerful and all-knowing, he could have designed it this way, or he could have designed the “kinds” truly distinctively, without any re-use, certainly of redundant or harmful parts.


The all-knowing and all-powerful God would be expected to make things in the way He saw fit best. That all living things have the same blueprint for life and share common design characteristics, they appear to have been designed. God could have left us a message to tell us how He made us, and when, and why. He could have left us a message to explain His purposes and the reason that we exist. He could have ensured that it was preserved. Guess what? He did. I call it the Bible.

In the Bible, God tells us about creation, He doesn't go into great detail, since it is a narration and not a textbook. This is how I take the Bible, as an eyewitness account.

Parts you consider redundant, that is your opinion. They may have been necessary 2,000 years ago or could be of use 200 years from now. The Designer would have reasons for the design.


The similarities among organisms and genomes makes evolution along a certain path (parallel to the phylogenetic tree) more likely than design. It does not conclusively “prove” either. It doesn’t disprove either, though the absence of this would have disproven evolution.

The high number of extinctions throughout the ages makes design less likely than evolution, unless we’re talking about a highly “trial-and-error” oriented design process, which is tantamount to evolution anyway. Again, what speaks against God having used what we call evolution as his design process? Only the stubborn insistence on seeing a document of dubious authorship as intended to be taken literally, unlike any other creation myth out there. (When I say creation myth, I use the definition of myth as “A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society”)

” Sometimes genetic information will be lost”

Could you name a specific example? How does genetic information get lost in microevolution?

” Salamanders may become largely blue, they may not be able to mate with red ones, but they will never become frogs. This is what is actually found in the world,”

Given, for argument’s sake, that an old earth and macroevolution are true, what rate of change would you expect to see in your human lifetime, or even in historical times? Is it your impression that the theory of evolution says you would see macroevolution in such a short time?


"Ring evolution" is an example of information being lost from the gene pool. Extinctions within kinds occur when segments of the population become specialized, which involves the loss rather than gain of genetic information. This makes these creatures less able to adopt to changes in environment and more likely to become extinct. Natural selection enables the kind to adjust to conditions but sometimes may more or less back a part of the population into a corner.

There is no continuum of transitional creatures found in the fossil record, either in small pockets or large populations. Puncuated equilibrium was devised to explain this away, so I suppose if it were true then one might see it in a lifetime. How many generations of fruit flies must die for the cause of Darwin before you agree that macroevolution cannot be demonstrated? In science fiction movies, you shoot radiation at ants and they evolve into 30-foot-high monster. In real life, you get more deadly or useless mutations but organisms remain what they are.

I expect to see variation within kinds but nothing changing into another kind of creature no matter how much manipulation by Darwinists.


9. ” Darwinist scientists must continually make up fanciful stories about how the things that are could have come to be.”

Okay, which fanciful stories are you talking about? Are they more fanciful than an omnipotent being waving a magic wand?


God didn't wave any wands. In fact, nothing magical about God. He says it, it happens, no bells and whistles.

Macroevolution happens too slow to leave evidence in the fossil record, so punctuated equilibrium is thought up to solve the problem. Is it tested and proven? Of course not. But stories of unseen bacteria with unprovably more primitive kinds of DNA and other systems are made up to explain how the remarkably complex systems of photosynthesis could have evolved. Remarkably unbelievable scenarios are painted in which all sorts of unused enzymes just happen to be "walking through the park one day", all come together somehow and begin working together as part of a previously unknown system. Almost-amino acids and other non-life kind of float around and form prehistoric life we cannot see on the way to becoming something akin to what is living today. Houses being built of straw, fairy tales from a thesaurus, that is what it looks like to a creationist. Because the evidences for macroevolution are not there, stories about how what is here now must have come to be must be made up.


” The result apparently changed one large continent surrounded by shallower seas into split continents with taller mountains separated by much deeper seas. Evidences of a resulting ice age are there. Formations such as the Grand Canyon fit into the scenario of receding waters through wet layers of not-yet-hard sediments, as do so many of the twisted and rolling rocks found in the wild.”

This is easily covered by old-earth geology.


More easily explained by the Flood.

”In fact, the rock record has anomalies that must be continually explained away if you are a uniformitarian.”

The theory of evolution does not argue against uniformitarianism. Who defends uniformitarianism?


Uniformitarianism is alive and well in textbooks and the lesson plans of science teachers in our school systems. I have dialogued with a few Darwinists who still believe in it.

10. ”We creationists are often ridiculed and asked large numbers of questions at once about what we post, while many of the points we present are left unaddressed.”

Which points did we leave unaddressed? Tell us and we’ll get on it. I thought we’d covered them all, but just let us know. While we’re at it, there is quite a stack of questions you have yet to get around to.


Sure. How did life appear? I know, you don't know so you can't answer other than with more fanciful stories. I post what I believe to be truth and I have taken the time to answer you today. Questions don't scare me.

By the way, there is no reason why you, Radar, a non-scientist who has been the victim of some horrendous educational experiences (I still think you should warn others about whatever that school was), blogging away in the Midwest, should have to plague yourself with such questions in the first place – creation scientists should be on this, engaged in active research to show that what is empirically true is 100% in line with a literal reading of Genesis. There are many ways to do this, and many rather obvious questions that can be asked and, if pursued successfully, would give “creation science” much of the credibility it so disastrously lacks. Perhaps you don’t wonder why they don’t do this, and instead constrict themselves to taking dishonest potshot at evolutionary theory, but I certainly do.

Ad hominem attack, here it comes! What makes you any more qualified than I to blog on the subject? Valid sites like ICR and AIG and Discovery.org present creationist/ID information from scientists of the highest order. Part of my intent is to point the way to those sites, much like a town crier announcing a coming meeting in the town hall. The information available in those sites comes from the cutting edge of science, from the point of view of those who believe we were designed rather than a happenstance. No one who has commented here has the standing in the scientific community even of a Behe or a Dembski but you are willing to stand on the sidelines and call them, and me, names. That does nothing to advance your cause. My education has taught me to think critically, to consider all sides, to seek truth and be afraid of nothing intellectually other than complacency. I seek out dialogue from Darwinists to hear what they will say. Critical thinking and no fear of unpopular ideas, these are good qualities which I have sought to teach to my children. The entrenched Darwinist community is in danger of becoming wedded to their doctrine and incapable of learning anything new.

I’ve posted questions about how, if creationism were valid, and if such a thing as “creation science” actually existed in any meaningful sense, it would explain the world around us in scientific terms. Here are some of them:

If eight people of one particular race existed in approx. 2350 BC, how were they able to evolve so quickly into the different races we see today? It supposes not only that evolution doesn’t exist, but that it exists and is much more rapid than anything proposed by the theory of evolution. (Cranky old fart brought this up as well, calling it super-evolution, in response to which you played dumb.) Why don’t we still see this kind of rapid evolution going on today?


No way, you consider this a valid question? I look almost nothing like my grandmother. My eye color, hair color, body shape, height, weight, all very different. Ask Mendel if the characteristics of an entire population could be held within eight individuals. This is simply variation within kind, explained to students before they hit eighth grade. No dumb was played in the answering of this question.

The population of the earth today is consistent with population growth beginning with one family 4,500 years ago.

Is it possible for the variety of life to have bloomed to such an extent from what could be contained on Noah’s Ark?

If there was a global flood in approx. 2350 BC, is it possible for the variety of life we see around us today to have bloomed to such an extent? What rate of evolution would this require, and do we see this rate around us today?

Where did Noah’s Ark land? Can we come to a reasonable conclusion based on migration patterns? If there were two elephants on the Ark when the Ark landed, how did their offspring migrate and evolve? What about all the other "kinds"? The migration spreading out from the Ark's landing point should be well recognizable in the migration and evolution of these "kinds" as they spread to all the other continents. How long did it take them to reach the other continents, now separated by oceans, and how did they get there?

What were the “kinds”, how many of them were there, how much space did they take up? (If dinosaurs lived after the flood, as Radar now also claimed, they would need space on the Ark too.) How much would it take to feed them for six months or a year, or even longer – a year plus whatever time it takes to grow food on soil ruined by saltwater?

What about saltwater and freshwater marine animals? Were they left to die?

Endless questions that would require scientific research to answer, but in response we get people like Radar making stuff up. Seriously, in addressing these questions, do you go to your big book about the scientific view of creationist natural history, or are you left to your own devices and a couple of websites? Do you now have to make up an answer about what happened to the marine animals, or will you go to AiG or ICR... or will you have an actual scientific study you can go to that addresses this?


The above is re-asking of previously asked and answered questions.

11. ” It may be outside of your belief system, but you do have to admit that it is entirely logical and fits with what is seen in the real world.”

No, Radar, it doesn’t seem all that logical, and it doesn’t seem to fit in with a great many things seen in the real world. You could surprise me, though, with your answers. You really could. As a matter of fact I would be astonished.

But somehow I get the feeling there is no such thing as “creation science”. Really. I look around on the Internet, and for evolutionary science there is a seemingly endless parade of scientific research conducted, building on existing knowledge, and vigorous debate among scientists. Next up is Intelligent Design, and people like Dembski who at least make a genuine effort to track down instances of irreducible complexity.

And then there’s “creation science”, which consists of little more than some religious content and, for the most part, potshots at the theory of evolution that have a difficult time surviving the first rebuttal. Not one of them (none of the ones I’ve seen anyway) takes itself seriously and says: “Genesis is true, which gives us these testable hypotheses, and we’re going to set out to test these – and confirm them.”

I may well be wrong on this, and I have asked you before about such a site. I suspect that you put up this post in response to that question, but what I was really more interested in was the scientific angle on this, and if that is the case, I appreciate your effort. But where is the scientific research that attempts to show us that it is indeed possible for people of one race to evolve into the races we know today in a few thousand years? Or that bothers to delineate the “kinds”?


As I said, the ICR site, the AIG site and Discovery.org has truckloads of material on the subject for those who are truly interested.

Dan S., I hope this blog hasn’t seen the last of you yet. I’ve really enjoyed your contributions on this topic.

Well, Dan, you come to us like an explorer wearing his pith helmet, walking into a jungle of ignorance and having a good laugh while doing so. I like your style, though, so I am glad to see you come in and sometimes you are funny. Wish you were on the "right" (from my perspective) side.

FINALLY, I worked in the automobile industry for almost two decades, involved in the manufacture of parts supplied to all the major automakers found in the USA. I labored in the plant before going into the process engineer side of things and also management. I saw the design process at work. Small parts for a car to be made 5-6 years in the future were planned, mocked up and tested and compared to other possibilities and finally we would begin producing them well before any such car was to be made. There was a lot of work put into the design. Of course, part of that was because men were the designers and sometimes made mistakes.

General Motors was our biggest client. We had an entire wing of the plant devoted to their style of parts. The same materials and approximate process was used for every GM car, but depending on the make we would vary a die here or there and a weight or a dimension. But you could tell a GM part by sight. Ford had a different design structure for their parts, although the parts served the same purpose.

So it is with life. One Designer, with a style and blueprint common to all forms of life, whose existence is hinted at by the commonality of the design. One Designer, who told us that He designed in the Bible. Posters to this blog have yet to be able to give me one bit of information that impacts the idea of creationism negatively. I see the world around me and it fits in with the creation model. I don't have to bring in all sorts of stories and corollaries to make it fit reality.

I believe God created. Many great scientists believe this as well. I am not required to be a great scientist to believe. The lack of a Ph.D in a related field does not preclude my participation in the discussion nor does it guarantee that I am right or wrong. Any of us can be wrong, we are human, after all. What I believe is logical and supported by the evidence. So far, posters to this blog have fallen short in the attempt to take God out of science.

It really is too bad that Darwinists were not afraid of opposing views. If all agreed to consider all evidences without closed minds, both our schools and our overall scientific endeavors would be better served.

61 comments:

Jake said...

The kinds of marine animals during the flood apparently had the abilities within their gene pools to adjust to waters that became increasingly brackish, or survive in waters that became increasingly fresh. Those abilities were naturally selected to keep the kind alive and some genetic information was doubtlessly lost in the process.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

1. Having some information in ones gene pool does translate to an ability to express that in our phenotype. For example, you and I both have genetic information for growing a tail in our DNA (to whit, we both had them in utero), but that doesn't mean that we would suddenly grow tails if we were forced to spend 150 days on a tightrope.

2. Natural selection doesn't happen in one generation, let alone 150 days. If it were the case that some water-dwellers had the ability (phenotypic, not only in the DNA somewhere, unexpressed) to adjust on the fly to varying levels of salinity, one would expect that modern aquatic animals would share that trait, since 4500 years is simply not enough time for that trait to disappear. Unfortunately, this is not what we see. Most aquatic animals will die if you put them in water with inappropriate salinity. Congratulations on having a testable hypothesis. Unfortunately for you, it's been falsified, which means there was no global flood.

Jake said...

oops, the first sentence in point 1 should read:

"Having some genetic information in one's gene pool does NOT translate to an ability to express that in our phenotype

Jake said...

For a post that I wrote on how natural selection works, which might clear up several of your misconceptions, look here

highboy said...

"So far, posters to this blog have fallen short in the attempt to take God out of science."

Kudos on the post, but in the interest of fairness we should note that not all posters supporting evolution are trying to take God out of science. I only take issue with evolutionists who believe that only real scientists support evolution. This is not true.

radar said...

I'm glad I hadn't left yet.

"Most aquatic animals will die if you put them in water with inappropriate salinity. Congratulations on having a testable hypothesis. Unfortunately for you, it's been falsified, which means there was no global flood."

We are not talking sudden change here. The inflow of additional minerals was a process and the 150 day flood was simply the begining of the process. Fish can take adjustments in the salinity of their water. Few fish thrive in water with effectively no salinity. I have to put a bit of salt in my tropical fish tanks. One tank has fish used to brackish water and that tank gets more salt. But fish begin to die in either tank if they get no salt at all.

The influx of salt and other minerals took many years, during which such time in the oceanic population the individuals who could handle salt water thrived and those that could not perished.

Jake said...

The influx of salt and other minerals took many years, during which such time in the oceanic population the individuals who could handle salt water thrived and those that could not perished.

You really just don't understand how natural selection works. "Many years" just isn't good enough. If you had water of salinity X before the flood, and fish thrived there, and then you added minerals over a period of Y<100 years, one of two things would happen:

1. If the vast majority of the fish did not have the ability to adjust to changing salinity then the vast majority would die. There is simply no way that the traits the expressed would change sufficiently in Y<100 years worth of generations to prevent that. The population would be devastated and we would currently have a fishless world.

This clearly did not happen, so we're left with option 2:

2. If most of the fish did have the ability to adjust to to changing salinity already expressed then most of the fish would survive. Those who could not adjust would die and at the end of our salinity-changing time period we would have a population consisting entirely of fish who could adjust to changing salinity. Now, 4500 years later, we would have a population of fish descended entirely from those fish. 4500 years is not very long in, so we would still have a majority of fish who could survive in a variety of salinities. This has also not happened.

Your predictions are not borne out, therefore your hypothesis is wrong. There was no global flood.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all fish need at least some salt. I'm baffled why you mentioned that.

highboy said...

Jake, I was really disappointed to see that your "Knife Wielding Feminists" blog wasn't what I thought it was.

radar said...

wrong, Jake. If the marine population was used to primarily a somewhat saline ocean and the salinity gradually increased over several year's time, then the majority of the population could easily be able to tolerate the change. It is not a matter of freshwater fish encountering saltwater, it is saltwater fish adjusting to a different level of salinity.

Jake said...

How anyone could be disappointed with that repository of recipes is beyond me, regardless of what you thought it was.

Oh wait, you just wanted fodder for your idea that feminists are all violently anti-male, didn't you? Oh well, not sorry to disappoint.

Anonymous said...

Radar wrote:
Valid sites like ICR and AIG and Discovery.org present creationist/ID information from scientists of the highest order.

Oh, I give up.

We've already established that Discovery.org lies about the peer-reviewed research it puts out and its scientist list.

Answers In Genesis split from its parent organisation in 2005 because Ken Ham wanted more freedom to say whatever he wanted rather than to have actual fact-checking as wanted by the other countries. It is, however, the best of the bad bunch you've presented (and the parent organisation that Ken Ham split from is better).

The ICR is Dr. Duane Gish's organisation - hardly noted for reliability. It is also notorious for dishonest quote mining (of the sort highboy attempted to present in a previous thread).

And you don't have a single "Scientist of the highest order" - the entire output claimed by the Discovery Institute would about fit one mediocre scientist. (For comparison with that list, Duane Gish has 40 papers to his name - but none after 1976).

In short, that quoted sentence contained two deceptions - the first was that a valid creationist website was like the ones listed (unless you think that "valid" means "wilfully distorts evidence in the majority of cases") aned the second is that you have any "scientists of the highest order" working for those websites.

I'm fed up of this. Over and out.

- F

highboy said...

Jake: Actually, I wanted nothing of the sort. Looks like you stereo-typed me, not the other way around. As for the recipes, the results aren't in yet. I have to try them, and trust me, I will. I'm enough of a humanist that if I see potential to score with food, I jump on it.

radar said...

anonymous F

....is giving up because he has no valid argument with those three sites. They all contain input from some very highly regarded scientists, but many of them are controversial because they oppose the standard mindset. Ken Ham is a brilliant man, Discovery includes Behe and Dembski (both people Darwinists love to hate) and ICR has dozens of brilliant minds on board.

When you discredit Ken Ham or Michael Behe, you identify yourself as a kool-aid drinker.

Anonymous said...

"Ask Mendel if the characteristics of an entire population could be held within eight individuals."

This general question is one of major concern for conservation biologists (for obvious reasons). Zoos around the country have complicated Species Survival Plans for species endangered or extinct in the wild, desperately trying to maximize genetic diversity given very limited space. This results in very carefully planned breeding (when possible), animals being shipped around the country to mate, and some fairly tricky ethical questions.

I'm pretty sure eight is too low, but I would have to do some research.

Two - any species (or isolated population) with only two surviving individuals is not looking forward to a very hopeful future. This is is a problem with the eastern (Florida) population of mountain lions . . . Additionally, genetic research fails to indicate evidence of major population bottlenecks in most animals - cheetahs and humans being two exceptions.

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

(and there are more than two mountain lions left there, although their numbers are very low)
-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

oh. yeah - radar: Eohippus (I can't ever spell the new name) and Equus in the same strata? Still with that?

-Dan S.

creeper said...

"We are not talking sudden change here. The inflow of additional minerals was a process and the 150 day flood was simply the begining of the process. Fish can take adjustments in the salinity of their water. Few fish thrive in water with effectively no salinity. I have to put a bit of salt in my tropical fish tanks. One tank has fish used to brackish water and that tank gets more salt. But fish begin to die in either tank if they get no salt at all.

The influx of salt and other minerals took many years, during which such time in the oceanic population the individuals who could handle salt water thrived and those that could not perished."


Is the creation science proposition that the ocean didn't consist of saltwater before the flood? That it was all freshwater?

creeper said...

"But where is the scientific research that attempts to show us that it is indeed possible for people of one race to evolve into the races we know today in a few thousand years? Or that bothers to delineate the “kinds”?"

"As I said, the ICR site, the AIG site and Discovery.org has truckloads of material on the subject for those who are truly interested."


On the subject of extremely rapid evolution into different races? And a listing of all the different "kinds" - even as a work in progress?

Erm - no. Not there.

See that's what I'm saying about "creation science". If it existed and people actually believed that the empirically verifiable world around us confirms a young earth creationist worldview, then they would do research into these things, they would propose hypotheses and test them and present their findings as they find their hypotheses joyfully confirmed by scientific fact.

But that ain't happening, is it?

creeper said...

”If eight people of one particular race existed in approx. 2350 BC, how were they able to evolve so quickly into the different races we see today? It supposes not only that evolution doesn’t exist, but that it exists and is much more rapid than anything proposed by the theory of evolution. (Cranky old fart brought this up as well, calling it super-evolution, in response to which you played dumb.) Why don’t we still see this kind of rapid evolution going on today?”

”No way, you consider this a valid question?”

Very much so – it’s crucial for the young earth model to be compatible with what we can observe around us. I’m surprised this question hasn’t occurred to you yet, though that may be because “creation science” seems to have as its first objective to take down the theory of evolution, instead of taking itself seriously and proceeding from that to research.

”I look almost nothing like my grandmother. My eye color, hair color, body shape, height, weight, all very different.”

Are you still the same race as your grandmother? Are you arguing that if you moved to Africa or Asia and pro-created exclusively with Caucasians, your great-grandchildren would turn out a different race?

”Ask Mendel if the characteristics of an entire population could be held within eight individuals.”

Well, Mendel’s dead, and I don’t know if he did any experiments of extremely rapid evolution resulting in the races we know in just a few hundred years.

This isn't just about whether these characteristics could be held within eight individuals (though that is an interesting subject unto itself), but also whether some kind of evolutionary process could result in such rapid change, from one race to another.

”This is simply variation within kind, explained to students before they hit eighth grade.”

Evolution from one race to another in just a few generations? Nope.

”The population of the earth today is consistent with population growth beginning with one family 4,500 years ago.”

In numbers, I guess it is mathematically possible, but how the races came about that quickly has not been answered by “creation science” at all - and such an evolutionary mechanism is crucial for the young earth worldview to be valid.

creeper said...

Since you said these questions had been asked (which I don't doubt) and answered before, it really shouldn't be that hard to point to the answers.

If there was a global flood in approx. 2350 BC, is it possible for the variety of life we see around us today to have bloomed to such an extent? What rate of evolution would this require, and do we see this rate around us today?

Where did Noah’s Ark land? Can we come to a reasonable conclusion based on migration patterns? If there were two elephants on the Ark when the Ark landed, how did their offspring migrate and evolve? What about all the other "kinds"? The migration spreading out from the Ark's landing point should be well recognizable in the migration and evolution of these "kinds" as they spread to all the other continents. How long did it take them to reach the other continents, now separated by oceans, and how did they get there?

Where are these studies on evolution rates and migration patterns? Who are the scientists who did (or are doing) this work?

Regarding the listing of "kinds": "creation scientists" have access to the same information about the variety of life as other scientists. How do they break it down into "kinds"? We're given a number of 16,000 (or was it 8,000), but no theory about which ones were on the Ark, and how they evolved into the variety of life around us now. Surely some kind of tree (or "orchard") diagram should be possible.

It should also be possible to examine genomes and conclude that all animals stem from common ancestors within the last x generations or y years - does the evidence confirm this? That's at least the beginnings of a testable hypothesis, by the way.

Which scientists "of the highest order" are working on this or have completed scientific studies on it?

"When you discredit Ken Ham or Michael Behe, you identify yourself as a kool-aid drinker."

Or someone who disagrees with you. Ken Ham's arguments have been refuted over and over - could you let us know which of them you consider valid?

creeper said...

"I thought [Mitochondrial Eve aged at 6500 years] was interesting but it doesn't really prove a great deal."

Certainly not to support a young earth worldview, since the underlying assumptions and other accompanying data all completely contradict what "creation science" claims.

"Much depends on your assumptions coming into the discussion and mine would be very different than yours."

No, everything depends on the assumptions that went into the calculations. You don't get to say "I think it's this number rather than that one because of my religious views" when the very existence of the calculation result rests on the givens that radiometric dating is accurate and humans and apes shared a common ancestor. If you disagree with that, then you can't really use the 6500 year-old Mitochondrial Eve as support for her being the first woman alive, with no ancestors or surrounding population; nor can you then continue to claim that radiometric dating is not valid in some other discussion.

Practice some coherency, will you?

creeper said...

"A world-wide flood at that particular time (2348 BC) is contradicted by, for example, civilizations who were supposedly wiped out continuing to exist without a mention of the flood."

"There is no reliable account of any civilization going back much beyond 4,000 some-odd years."


Try Ancient Egypt.

creeper said...

Is it true that the dinosaur tracks going uphill all stem from one site? When you said that "it is remarkable that largely without exception all dinosaur tracks point uphill", I thought you were talking about something a little more substantial. So there's one site where the tracks go uphill. There's another one I know of where they are all level.

And what are we supposed to conclude from this anyway? That dinosaur tracks were only created in the early days of the flood?

creeper said...

"For old-earthers, a layer supposed to be 120 million years old being atop a layer supposed to be 40 million years old is always a problem."

Not if there is a fold or fault involved. Could you name a specific example?

creeper said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
creeper said...

"You say no corollaries are necessary and immediately launch into one!"

What corollary? An organism adapting to survive is hardly a corollary to the theory of evolution, it's part and parcel of it.

Your assumption that evolution has to be in one direction and one direction only is not what the theory of evolution says. Explaining that to you is not a corollary.

creeper said...

""Ring evolution" is an example of information being lost from the gene pool. Extinctions within kinds occur when segments of the population become specialized, which involves the loss rather than gain of genetic information."

How do ring evolution and specialization involve the loss of genetic information?

creeper said...

"There is no continuum of transitional creatures found in the fossil record, either in small pockets or large populations."

I have already posted a link to a rather elaborate FAQ on this subject. Please have a look at it.

"Puncuated equilibrium was devised to explain this away, so I suppose if it were true then one might see it in a lifetime."

Apparently you misunderstand punctuated equilibrium, and the time spans it covers. When they talk about "sudden" events or species appearing "suddenly", they are still referring to this in geological time, which is not something we would ever expect to see in a lifetime, or even in the tiny sliver of time we call recorded history.

I'm glad we could clear up this misconception. I suspected that you thought this.

"How many generations of fruit flies must die for the cause of Darwin before you agree that macroevolution cannot be demonstrated?"

If even a single fruit fly had ever died for the cause of an experiment to demonstrate macroevolution, you might have a point. Speciation, on the other hand, has been demonstrated by fruit fly experiments.

creeper said...

"How did life appear? I know, you don't know so you can't answer other than with more fanciful stories."

An omnipotent omniscient being zapping it all into existence is no less fanciful than the current research being done on abiogenesis.

But "how did life appear?" is a question to which nobody yet has an answer, as I pointed out to you before - nor does it score the young earth creationist view any points.

You may say "God did it", but that does not provide a scientific explanation either. It's just another way of saying you don't know - but at least you get to stop investigating it scientifically.

creeper said...

Is it an ad hominem attack to say that "creation science" research is lacking or rather non-existent, and that there shouldn't be any reason why you should have to make up answers yourself?

If I'm wrong, by all means point me to the "creation science" research being done.

Just to remind you, when someone like Galileo goes up against the establishment of his day, the burden of proof is on him. He was able to provide it. If you see yourself in this role (instead of being the dogmatist), then you should insist on good science research being done to support your view.

Maybe that's already the case, but I sure don't see any evidence of it, not even on the sites you linked to.

Anonymous said...

Creeper wrote: "Surely some kind of tree (or "orchard") diagram should be possible."

orchard diagram! That's pretty good . . .

Of course, even if one managed to definitively delineate the various kinds, it would be a bit upsetting when the evergreen kind divergence dates didn't match the cat kind divergence dates, and suchlike . . .

Creeper points out "Your assumption that evolution has to be in one direction and one direction only is not what the theory of evolution says"
and
"Apparently you misunderstand punctuated equilibrium, and the time spans it covers. When they talk about "sudden" events or species appearing "suddenly", they are still referring to this in geological time"

In part it is a problem with science education, both formal and popular (of course, constant creationist agitation isn't helping matters - nor the role of Texas in de facto influencing the nation's textbooks (only partially balanced by California).
Of course, you know what they say about horses and water (but radar, do you still insist that 'eohippus' and Equus were found in the same strata?)

-Dan S

creeper said...

"Posters to this blog have yet to be able to give me one bit of information that impacts the idea of creationism negatively."

Young earth creationism you mean? As it is described in the Bible? There was quite a list of points that speak against a young earth, and a flood in the year 2348 BC: ancient civilizations that were not perturbed by the flood, as well as continuous tree-ring chronologies.

If you want to simply scoff at this because you once heard a claim about "more than one ring per year", please provide an actual scientific study that confirms this. Here's one that denies it: "Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified."

Not exactly a "Darwinist" site either.

Apply your open, truth-seeking mind to that.

We've also cleared up quite a few of your misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution, and are waiting for you to give us one bit of information that impacts the theory of evolution negatively.

creeper said...

Dan S,

"orchard diagram! That's pretty good . . ."

It goes quite well with the "creationist lawn".

Anonymous said...

radar said...
anonymous F

....is giving up because he has no valid argument with those three sites. They all contain input from some very highly regarded scientists, but many of them are controversial because they oppose the standard mindset. Ken Ham is a brilliant man, Discovery includes Behe and Dembski (both people Darwinists love to hate) and ICR has dozens of brilliant minds on board.

When you discredit Ken Ham or Michael Behe, you identify yourself as a kool-aid drinker.


And this is exactly why I'm giving up. I'm sorry for returning to this train-wreck to see just what you came up with as a response.

You appear to think that someone who thinks that astrology is a scientific theory is anything more than an extremely mediocre scientist with a poor understanding of science. (Behe). Dembski isn't a scientist, he's a mathematician (being one myself, I know the difference). Also one who doesn't understand statistics. (As I have repeatedly shown).

When you praise Behe as a good scientist you identify yourself as a scientific illiterate. As for discrediting Ken Ham, since his split from the parent ministry, AiG have removed their article on Maintaining Creationist Integrity (one of the articles that made me think that AiG was a cut above the rest).

And when I discredit someone I discredit someone. When I fail to discredit someone successfully then you can perhaps accuse me of "drinking kool-aid" (an accusation that is somewhat more applicable to someone not repudiating their sources when they e.g. claim that a peer-reviewer doesn't have to see the text in question or to someone who denies the existance of Ancient Egypt).

I notice that you are unable to present any form of defence for your chosen sources than an ad-hominem attack.

- F

highboy said...

Tree dating:

"Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’"

Jake said...

True though it may be that some marine fish can survive gradual changes in their salinity, they cannot survive changes in the range you want.

Furthermore, we currently have fish that can only survive in fresh water. If there were no such fish during your assumed date of the flood, there has not been enough time for them to develop. Your hypothesis remains falsified. There was no global flood.

Further disproof of the biblical timeline can be seen in this link. Do you really think 50 people built all the pyramids?

creeper said...

This is right at the beginning of the article:

"However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault."

At least he tells us up front about what he's going to do here - not interpret the data, but bend the interpretation of them so they will match the Biblical account. So much for his credibility. Couldn't he at least pretend?

One of his two central claims has already been debunked (Claim CD011.1: Carbon dating is based on the atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratio, but that ratio varies. Thus the carbon dating method is not valid.), and the other his highly speculative and link fails to take into account the falsification presented in the link I put up earlier.

The claim fails to address or refute the
case made earlier, as you'll see when you read the falsification therein.

And what do the two chronologies - one in the USA, one in Europe, have to do with a Biblical "kind"?

Jake said...

Here is another useful link refuting the biblical timeline.

radar said...

F

...is evidently gone now, but after having launched an ad hominem attack at the people from ICR, AIG and Discovery he was unhappy to have it turned back upon him. Being very familiar with the works of the men he denigrated, I am aware that there is a large group of opponents who have attacked their reputations, believing it to be easier than attacking their work in the field of science.

So math is not science? Hmmmmm, matter of semantics.

I have seen the mathematical argument (52 cards, etc.) which is a very clever way to avoid the issue as posed by Huxley and others before and after him. The reason being, of course, that a straightforward look at the odds of organisms having evolved tells us that it is a statistical impossibility.

The Egyptians are found very early in the Bible and can be dated using it rather than more unreliable sources. Several names and approximate dates as listed in the Bible have already been affirmed by Archaelogists and no doubt that trend will continue. The Hittites, for one example, were considered to be a Biblical fairy tale until evidences of their existence was found in Turkey. Sargon was considered to be a fake until evidence of his existence and even the story told in the Bible was found in Iraq. No doubt the Egyptians were among the earliest empires after the Flood. Matching up their names and dates with the Biblical names and dates is one way to try to quantify the time from the Flood until today. The Egyptian records are an aid in this attempt. But if one needs to depend solely on Biblical or Egyptian sources, the Biblical source has been the most reliable.

Note: Genealogical records in the Bible may include some "skips" in which a lineage may list a grandfather or great-grandfather, for instance, as the father in the earliest stages of the lineage after Noah. This is why some Bible scholars approximate the time from the Flood until today. This could account for perhaps a few hundred years leeway in the time since the Flood. Not millions, or even thousands, however. Whether Noah stepped off of the Ark in approximately 2350 BC or 2500 BC or 2850 BC is not absolutely certain. I estimate a 2500 BC date when discussing the issue but always keeping in mind that it is an estimate.

radar said...

Jake, as to this:

"Here is another useful link refuting the biblical timeline."

I may use that link as a background from which to refute silly refutations. That posting has several of them. Thanks!

creeper said...

"The reason being, of course, that a straightforward look at the odds of organisms having evolved tells us that it is a statistical impossibility."

You still missed the rhetorical intent Huxley was aiming for, namely to show that natural selection changes those odds considerably - in the same way that you missed F's rhetorical as well as logical intent.

(Incidentally, what are the odds of God creating a universe?)

"The Egyptians are found very early in the Bible and can be dated using it rather than more unreliable sources. Several names and approximate dates as listed in the Bible have already been affirmed by Archaelogists and no doubt that trend will continue."

Egypt being found in Genesis - as an already existing country, and a prosperous one at that - does not contradict Egypt's historical timeline as it was presented. Insofar there is no information in the Bible that would trump "more unreliable sources". The Bible's account is simply too vague for that.

Noah's flood remains falsified by civilizations who were not destroyed by the supposedly global flood, as well as a continuous record of trees living through the time of the supposed flood, even with your shifting the flood around a couple of centuries this way or that.

Though it's an amusing read, Jake's link does have some refuted points in it. It seems to be a hodge podge of contributions by various people. It does, however, touch on some of the important points that Radar is studiously avoiding.

creeper said...

I completely missed this one earlier:

"Interestingly, Genesis keeps a geneology of men from Adam all the way to Noah and it continues onward. During the time of Christ, a Jew could trace his genology all the way from Adam and there were books in the Temple that recorded this."

According to this, then, at the time of Christ every person on Earth should be able to trace their lineage back to Noah (and thus to Adam) - no matter what race they were, or what continent they lived on. An aborigine in Australia, a Mayan on the American continent, etc.

Incidentally, this makes me wonder: were there even different races before the flood?

highboy said...

This Old Earth advocate can clearly see the problems with dendrochronological dating, based on the fact that it does not date back far enough to concur with evolution or old earth theories.

"It is only useful where wood is preserved. Depending on where you are, sequences only go back 5,000 to 9,000 years. People in the past often recycled wood. It is only useful for local chronologies."

In other words, they have drawn their conclusions, and now dismiss anything that does not match up with their conclusions.

"this makes me wonder: were there even different races before the flood?"

No, and there aren't any now. That is why it is called the human race. Hitler bought the whole natural selection idea, and killed 6,000,000 Jews as a result. Survival of the fittest and all that.

What reasons do evolutionists give for so many different, shall we say, "colors" of people? The sun mostly. Black people are adapted to the sun-rich Africa supposedly, though it doesn't explain why blacks have thrived in freezing cold Canada.

" When humans migrated to sun-poorer regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color evolved."

Why aren't dark-skinned people adapting in colder regions? Or does that take millions of years too?

"Dark-skinned people who live in sun-poor regions often lack vitamin D3, one reason for the fortification of milk with vitamin D in some countries."

Yet they are still dark. This makes no sense because above we see that dark skinned migrants in the north resulted in evolved light skin. Why is this not still occuring? Or is it? I'm not making an argument before you flame me, I'm asking a question. I just started spit-balling when Creeper asked that question.

Jake said...

Why aren't dark-skinned people adapting in colder regions? Or does that take millions of years too?
Not millions of years, but tens of thousands.

If the change is still ongoing we certainly wouldn't see it in our lifetimes. You seem to think that evolution looks like this:

- Dark skinned human population goes to area where there is not much sun.
- Dark skinned humans suffer from vitamin D deficiency.
- Dark skinned humans have slightly lighter skinned offspring, who have even lighter skinned offspring, until the entire population is light skinned.

That's not how it works. It works like this:

- Human population goes to area with less sun. Vast majority are dark skinned but some have mutations that lighten the colour of their skin to varying extents.
- Those with lighter skin have a higher chance of surviving to reproductive age, because they don't suffer from vitamin D deficiency. The next generation has a slightly higher proportion of light-skinned individuals.
- This carries on for hundreds of generations, until eventually all the people have light skin.

Bear in mind that the only reason this change happened was because it was advantageous to that population to have light skin. It was advantageous because dark skin led to vitamin deficiencies. Since most, if not all, countries with low sun now add vitamin D to their milk and other food products, those with dark skin will not suffer from vitamin D deficiency, so there is no selective pressure towards lighter skin.

To sum up:

1) Even if light skin were still advantageous in these countries, you wouldn't see the change happening at a rate you could detect

and

2) Light skin is no longer advantageous, because of human intervention, so evolutionary theory predicts that dark skinned individuals in low sun climates will NOT "evolve into" light skinned individuals over any time frame.

Jake said...

The Egyptians are found very early in the Bible and can be dated using it rather than more unreliable sources.

What evidence do you have that the Bible is a reliable source for historical information?

Anonymous said...

"The Hittites, for one example, were considered to be a Biblical fairy tale until evidences of their existence was found in Turkey."

And Troy and the Trojans was considered to probably be a Homeric fairy tale until Heinrich Schliemann went and dug it up (well, dug up a Bronze Age city that might be the Troy of the Iliad . . .)

Does that mean everything that in the Iliad and the Odyssey is true?

***

F - you've been putting up such a well-written, etc. argument - I'm sad to see you go! (although time away from the computer is probably good for all . . .)

-Dan S.

creeper said...

"This Old Earth advocate can clearly see the problems with dendrochronological dating, based on the fact that it does not date back far enough to concur with evolution or old earth theories."

It dates back to 9,000 years, he says, and there are others that go back 10,000 years. That's beyond 6500 years, isn't it? So it is consistent with an old earth, but not with a young earth. This disproves a young earth of 6,000-6,500 years old.

Are you suggesting that for an old earth model to be true, we should be seeing trees that live or have been preserved for millions of years?

"In other words, they have drawn their conclusions, and now dismiss anything that does not match up with their conclusions."

Projecting much? If a local chronology goes back to 9,000 years, a global flood in the year 2348 BC is disproven. If an ancient civilization exists throughout the time of the supposed flood without being annihilated in its entirety, a global flood in the year 2348 BC is disproven. It's you who is dismissing information that doesn't match with your foregone conclusions, and it is you who posted an article that contained this choice quote:

"However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault."

Think about that for a minute, and think about what it is you're accusing others of doing - without even backing up your assertion, I might add.

I've given you this helpful advice before: when you get to the bottom, stop digging.

"No, and there aren't any now. That is why it is called the human race."

That's one meaning of the word, but why, if you're trying to debate honestly, would you insist on taking the word out of the context in which it is obviously intended? Surely you know that the way 'race' is used in 'the human race' is not the only meaning of the word.

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


You just race straight to definition 4, denying the other ones even exist ("No, and there aren't any now.").

There are races (see definitions 1, 3, and 5), and the question is where they come from if we posit a starting point of one couple of one particular race approx. 4350 years ago.

"Hitler bought the whole natural selection idea, and killed 6,000,000 Jews as a result."

Could you define what you understand by the term 'natural selection'?

"What reasons do evolutionists give for so many different, shall we say, "colors" of people? The sun mostly."

Yes, among others. Were you planning on refuting this? By all means present your ideas. Check with any "creation scientist" of your choice. What causes this evolution - at a much faster rate - under the young earth creationist model?

"Black people are adapted to the sun-rich Africa supposedly, though it doesn't explain why blacks have thrived in freezing cold Canada."

Well, yes it does, because it does not propose any such quick rate of change. It is the young earth creationist model that proposes a very limited time frame for this to happen, and this is a key problem for "creation science". Black people turning white in colder climates or white people turning black in Africa within a few hundred years is exactly what we would expect to see (a testable prediction) if the young earth model were true - since it requires all races evolving very quickly (a few hundred years) after the Ark touched land.

"I just started spit-balling when Creeper asked that question."

You should stop spitballing, because you've just dug another massive hole for yourself. How does "creation science" explain the variety of races we see today, as well as the fact that they don't change as quickly as a young earth model would require?

Of course there is no actual "creation science" research on this subject, because "creation science" doesn't even take itself seriously enough to believe its own propositions.

Why should anyone else take "creation science" seriously if young earth creationists can't even be bothered to?

creeper said...

Radar,

How does the Bible date the pyramids of Gizeh?

And this is kind of amusing:

"Genealogical records in the Bible may include some "skips" in which a lineage may list a grandfather or great-grandfather, for instance, as the father in the earliest stages of the lineage after Noah. This is why some Bible scholars approximate the time from the Flood until today. This could account for perhaps a few hundred years leeway in the time since the Flood."

But Radar, most of your "expert witness's testimony" was based on the Bible and especially Genesis being utterly infallible, and to be taken literally without exception.

Your honor, I submit that we have an unreliable witness who for no known reason forgets entire generations. There is no reason for us to believe that the witness should be infallible in all other regards under these circumstances.

In light of this, as well as the heavy reliance of Radar as attorney in depending on this text being taken 100% literally, as well as the stunning absence of any "creation science" research into key questions posed by the young earth model, I move for the witness to be treated with extreme skepticism.

radar said...

Before the time of the temple, the records of descent were not kept for the same purposes and in the same ways. Ancient men often ascribed their descent from the most illustrious paternal ancestor and it has been speculated that the geneology from the time of the Flood to Abraham in particular displays this thinking. Since these men did descend from this ancestor, the geneology could be listed this way honestly. It was the bloodline and it was the geneology in use at the time when Moses had it recorded.

This makes it hard to get exact dates from the Flood up to Abraham, certainly, whereas the lineage from Adam to Noah was kept very carefully and listed in such a way to make no mistake in the amount of time between Adam and Flood.. There is nothing inaccurate in these lineages other than to make early dates difficult to pinpoint. I have seen reasonable Biblical scholars push the Flood date back to around 4,000 BC. I remain open to further information on the subject.

Whether it was 2350 years ago or 4000 or even 5000 years ago that Noah and his family stepped off the Ark is of interest to archaelogists in particular whereas it is a minor point when considering origins. 4000 years is not a million. I tend to leave that conversation to those who are most interested in it. It does not change the matter of the oldest trees found on earth, in that the dating of such trees cannot be done with certainty.

In fact, all dating methods have severe problems because we don't have records going back thousands of years to determine whether the method is consistently accurate over long times. Methods that favor creationism as well as those for long ages all suffer from this problem.

Noah and his family consisted of his wife, their three sons and the three wives of the sons. The genetic code for the entire human race could certainly be found within these eight individuals. Hawaii (where he was called Nu-u), the Sudan (Nuh), China (Nu-Wah), the Amazon region (Noa), Phrygia (Noe) and among the Hottentots (Noh and Hiagnoh)are among the cultures who have preserved that name. Cultures also keep a flood myth of some kind, some of them being very different from the Biblical account. Word of mouth as peoples scattered from the area near Bible lands has had its effect on the story. Yet the basics of the story are found in cultures around the globe. Some coincidence if they do not come from some actual event in the past.

highboy said...

"You should stop spitballing, because you've just dug another massive hole for yourself. How does "creation science" explain the variety of races we see today, as well as the fact that they don't change as quickly as a young earth model"

What hole? Hey, in case you missed it I stated clearly I was just asking a question, not knowing the answer. You give your true motives away when you flame someone who is clearly not trying to make an argument. I have no idea how creation science explains the phenomenon, nor does it concern me. I don't believe in creation science any more than I believe in evolution. You asked a question concerning the different races and I was just curious. What is wrong with my curiousity? If I need to clearly demonstrate my objectivity in this debate for you to stop questioning my intelligence, I'll give you one real good reason why I'm not sold on a young earth, and its right there is Scripture. The Bible records 7 days of Creation. A day taken literally is 24 hours. But we measure days by the sun. The sun is not created until day 4. "Day" is our word, and the Hebrew word for "day" is "yom`". This particular word is used many times in the Bible (as you can imagine) and has almost 23 different meanings in these cases. "Yom"` or "day" in the Hebrew tongue means more than just 24 hours. Happy now?

"but why, if you're trying to debate honestly, would you insist on taking the word out of the context in which it is obviously intended?"

It was just word salad. It was not suppose to be taken seriously.

creeper said...

All right, highboy, in this case it is not a hole that you've dug for yourself. I take it back, my apologies.

Rapid evolution of races is however a massive hole for young earth creationism, which its resident advocate, Radar, has not yet found the time to address. Neither have "creation scientists", if they do indeed exist.

Anonymous said...

[Dan S. says . . .]

" . . .the cultures who have preserved that name"
radar, what are you talking about?

" Cultures also keep a flood myth of some kind, some of them being very different from the Biblical account."

That's true, and some of that may in fact record a historical event (one recent hypothesis suggests Black Sea flooding, which is controversial but has some support for a) the Mediterrean pouring into what had been a large post-glacial lake, raising the shoreline, while b) this is the source of the west asian/south-eastern european flood myths probably can never be proven . . ).

In some cases, other cultures may have a flood myth because of Christian missionaries, or at least the influence of Christianity. Oral tradition isn't fixed; Native American legends/myths/etc. include creation accounts involving white people and horses, for example, while West African culture heroes are said to have invented bicycles (look, when you have poor quality roads and limited public transportation, bicycles are incredibly useful)

And in even some other cases, any culture living in a place where destructive floods happen is going to have it make a big impact on their collective imagination, both in the sense of weaving history into myth, and of being the obvious image for 'a catastrophic thing.''

Imagine if we in the U.S. didn't have writing, but relied entirely on oral history, etc. Can you imagine the stories that people around the Gulf Coast would be telling in a few centuries?

Let's say we accept that modern science doesn't support the idea of a recent worldwide flood (and make no mistake, it doesn't). We can stop there - science doesn't support it, but it happened. Or we could go on: there wasn't a recent worldwide flood, although there might well have been a smaller local one. What do we have then? This: a certain group of people took a flood - a destructive, apparently meaningless event that might (except in terms of physics) - and turned it into - what? A statement about how God hates immorality, enough to wipe out most of the world. That nevertheless he cared for it enough to make sure a virtuous man, his family, and all living creatures were saved. That despite the chaotic, dangerous nature of life, He has promised that He won't do it again, and given a sign that from now on, now matter how bad it seems, the rain will stop. That we have a bond - perhaps of obligation, perhaps of being owed, perhaps both - with our fellow creatures. That all people are part of one family.

It's amazing. Humanity is confronted with utter meaninglessness, horrific destruction, and somehow transforms it into meaning, morality, a guide to living. Whether it is effective, and more importantly for this discussion, whether it is in some sense true - that we are doing this because we know, in a way beyond scientific knowledge, that whatever the specific details the idea is right - well, that I have no answer for (and personally don't think so, but you may think differently.

-Dan S,

Anonymous said...

Newton explained the colors of the rainbow. Does that mean he was refuting religion, or adding wonder to a world that might (independently) be the Creation of God?

After all, you can say: God gave Noah the rainbow sign, and that's that! All those Newtonists who insist it's about optics are engaged in some big conspiracy, and are suppressing other perspectives!

Or you could say: The rainbow is the sign of a covenant between God and humanity, and God'[s promise - even without an actual Flood - but he used or set up physical laws to make it work - Newton managed to show God's rules.

Or you could say, the rainbow is a beautiful, poetic metaphor* for that covenent and God's promise, and it works due to physical laws. People picked this metaphor, but it nevertheless expresses a true thing (what, you think only nonfiction can be true?)

Or you could say, the rainbow is caused by light, water, refraction, and reflection, and wow, it's really pretty.


* although to be frank, for me, this episode makes God look a bit like an abusive spouse, but what do I know?

Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah, that last was me.

-Dan S.

creeper said...

"Before the time of the temple, the records of descent were not kept for the same purposes and in the same ways."

What do records have to do with it? Wouldn't God know all of this? You're not suggesting the Bible is as fallible as any other document written by man around that time, would you?

"There is nothing inaccurate in these lineages other than to make early dates difficult to pinpoint."

Except for the potentially gaping holes you mentioned, right? Like these:

"I have seen reasonable Biblical scholars push the Flood date back to around 4,000 BC. I remain open to further information on the subject."

Even pushing it back as far as 4,000 BC would be falsified by tree ring chronologies going back 9,000-10,000 years.

Also, how many generations would you have to add to squeeze another approx. 1600 years into the chronology? How can this in any way be considered more than a vague source of limited reliability?

"It does not change the matter of the oldest trees found on earth, in that the dating of such trees cannot be done with certainty."

Enough certainty to disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis.

"Whether it was 2350 years ago or 4000 or even 5000 years ago that Noah and his family stepped off the Ark is of interest to archaelogists in particular whereas it is a minor point when considering origins."

It's rather crucial for someone who insists on claiming Genesis is to be taken literally though, isn't it?

Jake said...

"I have seen reasonable Biblical scholars push the Flood date back to around 4,000 BC. I remain open to further information on the subject."


Oh really? Then what about the multiple facts that we have brought to light, indicating that the flood never happened? Are you open to that?

What kind of evidence would it take for you to admit that the flood never happened?

Look, I'm not telling you to stop believing in the Bible, I'm simply asking that you stop pretending that it's a rational belief, supported by science. It's not.

Anonymous said...

jake said . . .
"I'm simply asking that you stop pretending that it's . . . supported by science. It's not."

Ah, but that's the point, you see. All the cool kids are playing monopoly, so they want to play too. Except that they keep trying to put little houses they haven't bought on property they don't own, and when they get caught, or when they have to pay up after landing on Vermont Ave, they throw a fit and accuse the other players of conspiring against them.

-Dan S., with Boardwalk and Park Place! Ha ha ha!*

* actually, in the version I have, it's Yosemite and Yellowstone . . .

radar said...

The evidence better supports a worldwide flood and to me you are the one that cannot see forest for trees. It is the Darwinist who must try to explain the sedimentary rock record with countless corollaries when without further explanation the Flood produces the layers, the canyons, the "ice age" phenomenon, layers that are the wrong "age" in the wrong order and so on.

Tree rings can be produced many times in one year. Therefore tree ring dating is not a precise method at all. It disproves nothing but gives aid and comfort to Darwinists.
If you are a fan of dating, check out Polonium radiohalo and see what information you glean.

Anonymous said...

"The evidence better supports a worldwide flood"

Then why do virtually all the geologists in the world disagree with you? The only people who don't are the folks who started out wedded to this idea. Well, I can't say no one has ever gone into geology with an open mind, looked at the evidence, and gone, gee willikers! There was a recent worldwide flood!!, but historically and currently, that's not what's happened to any measurable degree (I'll grant you the possibility of <1% . . . but I'm not counting anybody who found Jesus (hopefully not in sedimentary rock!), converted to some form of biblical literalism, and then realized . . .

"It is the Darwinist who must try to explain the sedimentary rock record"

Actually, no, it isn't. (If you are using Darwinist as dismissive/projective shorthand for modern evolutionary biologists.) The people whose professional task it is to explain the sedimentary rock record are geologists, specifically sedimentary geologists. These are geologists that are formed when little bits of igneous or metamorphic geologists come together and are subjected to heat and pressure . . well, no, actually: learn about sedimentary geologists here. Does sedimentary geology support a YEC global flood? No.

" the "ice age" phenomenon"
You know the guy who played a major role in recognizing the ice ages was a creationist, right? Also rather a bit of a racist - but he has some nice lakes named after him . .

A fan of dating? Sorry, I'm married . . .

-Dan S.

Jake said...

These are geologists that are formed when little bits of igneous or metamorphic geologists come together and are subjected to heat and pressure

Ha! Awesome.

creeper said...

"The evidence better supports a worldwide flood and to me you are the one that cannot see forest for trees."

A worldwide flood in the third millennium BC, wiping out all life except for what was stuffed on the Ark, has yet to be demonstrated to be viably compatible with the world we see around us today. It is flat out contradicted by some of the evidence (ancient civilizations continuing to exist when they should have been eliminated, tree ring chronologies showing no sign of the flood), and so you can't really claim that the evidence is more supportive of this idea than another one that doesn't suffer from having already been disproven.

In addition, it would necessitate a speed of evolution to bring about the different races that is simply not apparent around us. You previously replied that this was just variation within kind, but that wasn't the point. The point is that there are significant differences between the races, and we don't see such rapid changes of people changing race when they move into different climates. It is the speed of this evolution that makes this a problem for young-earth creationism, not for old-earth creationism (as long as it does not hold on to Noah's Ark) or the naturalistic theory of evolution.

Your speculations about marine animals adjusting to different degrees of salinity are likewise dodgy, and would require scientific research to back them up.

"It is the Darwinist who must try to explain the sedimentary rock record with countless corollaries when without further explanation the Flood produces the layers, the canyons, the "ice age" phenomenon, layers that are the wrong "age" in the wrong order and so on."

All of these are easily explained by an old Earth. You mentioned layers that are the wrong age in the wrong order, and I asked for specific examples, since something like this can be explained by folds or faults.

Over millions and millions of years, a lot has happened on this planet. Sedimentary and volcanic layers have been layed down, eroded, folded, torn apart. You seem to scoff when you say corollaries, but the fact of the matter is that there is quite a variety of geological formations, and no simplistic rule that would describe them all.

Incidentally, why is it the "Darwinist" who must explain this, as opposed to a bog standard geologist? Old Earth creationists, too, believe in this - it is a somewhat separate issue from accepting the theory of evolution. Is a "Darwinist" simply anyone who opposes your notions of the young earth according to Genesis?

Plenty of believing Christians can see through the gaping holes in your logic and your "just-so" justifications and corollaries as well.

"Tree rings can be produced many times in one year. Therefore tree ring dating is not a precise method at all. It disproves nothing but gives aid and comfort to Darwinists."

This claim has already been scientifically falsified. The speculations of Dr. Batten, to which highboy linked, were just that, speculations unsupported by research, and did not deal with the specific examples of the tree-ring chronologies in the USA and Europe, dating back 8,500 and 10,000 years.

"If you are a fan of dating, check out Polonium radiohalo and see what information you glean."

I'm not a "fan of dating" as such (happily married! :-)), but I'll have a look. Do I take it this is you trying to change the subject?

creeper said...

"A fan of dating? Sorry, I'm married . "

Dangit, Dan, I swear that wasn't up yet when I made the same joke...!